Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

NOTICES OF MOTIONS

ENERGY CONSERVATION (HOUSING) BILL

Motion made,

That the Energy Conservation (Housing) Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Efford.]

Hon. Members: Object.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY BILL

Motion made,

That the Energy Efficiency Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Efford.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Orders of the Day — Fur Farming (Prohibition) Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The sequence in which the groups of amendments and clauses appear is perhaps not unusual, but it may be difficult to deal first with clause 3, then clauses 1, 2 and so on. I ask for clarification on the points at which Divisions may be taken, particularly should there be requests for Divisions on different items from a group. At which point would you wish such requests to be made? I should like to be clear that I understand the sequence.

Madam Speaker: I want to be as helpful as I can regarding Divisions. After the first debate and Division, the Chair can judge the progress that has been made and determine, helpfully to the House I hope, the Divisions to be taken afterwards. I should like to hear some of the debate first before determining where Divisions should fall after the first one.

New Clause 2

APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY RESPONSIBILITY FOR FORFEITED ANIMALS

'—(1) Where a court makes an order under section 2, the appropriate authority shall arrange for qualified veterinary officers of the authority to take possession of the animals and convey them into authority custody as soon as is reasonably practical.
(2) The forfeited animals shall be housed in compliance with such regulations regarding animal welfare as applied to fur farming prior to the coming into force of sections 1 to 4 of this Act.
(3) The appropriate authority shall keep records of the animals forfeited, including records of their health status and mortality rates.
(4) The appropriate authority shall have the right to recover from the person against whom the order was made the full costs of keeping the forfeited animals from the time the order was made until their final destruction or disposal.
(5) The appropriate authority shall retain the forfeited animals until there is no further possibility of the order being set aside and shall then submit to the court a report setting out—

(a) how it intends finally to dispose of the animals;
(b) the costs incurred by the authority from forfeiture to anticipated disposal.'—[Mr. Maclean.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Maclean: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: New clause— Authorised or appointed persons—
'Persons authorised or appointed under sections 3 or 4 shall be veterinary officers of the State Veterinary Service.'.
Amendment No. 1, in clause 3, page 2, line 21, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 24, leave out from 'order' to end of line 31 and insert
'it shall order that the forfeited animals shall become the property of the appropriate authority and be dealt with in accordance with section (appropriate authority responsibility for forfeited animals) below.'.
Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 24, after 'may' insert 'in particular'.
Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 27, leave out 'other disposal' and insert
'disposal by other such means as the appropriate authority may specify in regulations.'.
Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—
'() make such provision as the court considers appropriate in relation to the operation of the order pending the making or determination of any appeal or application relevant to the order.'.
Amendment No. 11, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—
'(d) where the offender demonstrates that he is incapable of paying the required sum to the court, or keeping the animals himself, make suitable arrangements for the animals to be kept in a proper condition.'.
Amendment No. 12, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—
'() Where the court orders an offender to make a payment in accordance with subsection (c) above, it shall take into consideration the cost of keeping the animals concerned in compliance with such regulations regarding animal welfare as applied to fur farming prior to the coming into force of sections 1 to 4 of this Act.'.
Amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 31, at end insert—
'() Any person appointed under subsections (a) or (b) above shall possess such qualifications or meet such criteria as the appropriate authority shall specify in regulations.'.

Mr. Maclean: The first group of amendments is extremely important. New clause 3 provides a variation on new clause 2, should that prove unacceptable to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) or the Government. Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have, of course, been tabled by the hon. Lady herself.
Amendment No. 4 is technical, giving the authority to introduce new clause 2, which would replace clause 3(4), which deals with the effect of forfeiture orders. It would provide that animals subject to a forfeiture order should be dealt with by qualified veterinary officers under a prescribed procedure.
The Bill does not prescribe by whom a forfeiture order should be carried out. It is possible that the convicted mink farmer himself could be charged by the court with responsibility for the destruction or other disposal of the animals. It is perhaps more likely that responsibility would be given to a third party. The court may decide that the mink farmer who has broken the law should not be responsible for looking after the animals. The courts might, quite rightly, not trust the farmer who has broken the law.
Whoever is appointed by the court should be suitably qualified in the welfare and handling of the species concerned. We are not dealing with ordinary, run-of-the-mill farm animals, for which there are a range of welfare codes and for the keeping of which a certain skill is required. Those skills may be possessed by hundreds of thousands of farmers up and down the 
country who would be capable of looking after each

other's sheep, cattle, horses or pigs. When it comes to fur farming, however, those skills will not be so widely transferable or available, and only some of the 13 fur farmers or others previously involved in the business will be suitably qualified.
Much play has been made of the dangers that mink pose to wildlife if they are released. Everyone agrees that mink require experienced handling. Not only are there Government welfare codes for the farming of animals, particularly for fur farming and for mink, but the Mink Keeping Order 1998 was designed to ensure, irrespective of welfare considerations, that mink do not escape into the wild.
It is vital that any person nominated by a court to be responsible for forfeited animals is experienced in keeping species such as mink, and aware of the mink keeping regulations and capable of complying with them. The person must also have facilities to feed and water mink properly, deal with their health problems and keep them safely and securely.
The Bill has two grave dangers, particularly as compensation arrangements are not yet clear, despite the best endeavours of the hon. Member for Garston—I pay tribute to the work that she has done with the Government to try to clarify compensation rules—and the fact that there may be a commitment to something better in the future. One danger is that some mink farmers may say, "To blazes with it," and that some of the mink that are forfeited may be released into the wild. Also, as we will no doubt be told today, there is a danger that, if the Bill is not enacted in its present form immediately, animal rights terrorists will take action against mink farmers and release mink.

Maria Eagle: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to take notice of what fur farmers think, will he take into account the fact that the Fur Breeders Association of the United Kingdom, which represents all the farmers, wants the Bill to proceed, as does the National Farmers Union, which represents 10 fur farmers?

Mr. Maclean: I note exactly what the hon. Lady said. I believe that the NFU has said that, if compensation arrangements are adequate, it will not stand in the way of the legislation. The NFU rightly sees it as its duty to protect the financial interests of its members. However, I am not certain from the letter from the NFU a couple of days ago, which I think we all received, that it is convinced that the compensation arrangements are fully spelled out and agreed. One part in big black type stated that the farmers want compensation for loss of income.
At the moment, everyone is saying that we should allow the Bill to go to another place and hope that the compensation arrangements will then be clarified. However, this is also a matter of principle. The industry may say that it is fed up because it is being attacked by animal rights terrorists every day—one farmer telephoned me recently to say that he had had 300 attacks—and is happy to go out of business, provided that the Government give compensation. I do not see why my constituents should pay through their taxes, via the Government, for someone to go out of business voluntarily because of this ban.

Mr. Owen Paterson: My right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Garston underestimate


the fact that the entire European fur farming industry is watching us this morning. I have talked today to Mr. Helge Olsen of the European Fur Breeders Association and to Mr. Knud Vest, who is vice-president of that association—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman is not going to get away with that in an intervention.

Mr. Maclean: I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) is saying, although it is possibly not a valid comment at this point in the debate. We may be able to discuss it when we debate the merits of abolishing fur farming. I think that 50,000 mink are farmed in England, but 30 million are farmed worldwide, and about 60 per cent. of European production is in Denmark. That production will continue.
The new clause would ensure that responsibility for animals that are subject to a forfeiture order is clear. With the best will in the world, Labour Members will, I think, agree that, although the provisions of new clause 3 are adequate, they are not as clear as those in my new clause 2. The new clause would make the provisions clear and would ensure that those charged with looking after animals were suitably qualified. The provision is important, given the likely length of the process from forfeiture order to final disposal. I am not sure how many lawyers are present this morning, but, even if there were many, I am sure that the House would agree that lawyers do not move quickly—normally, it is dead slow and stop. Even if lawyers acted quickly, the time taken for normal arguments in court to get and to oppose the forfeiture orders and to reach what the hon. Member for Garston calls "final disposal" once the legal case is settled could be lengthy. Considerable costs could be incurred for the proper upkeep of animals during that period, which an offender who had been deprived of his livelihood could have real difficulty in meeting or be reluctant to meet.
The new clause would ensure that the welfare of the animals was properly protected pending their destruction or disposal. That is wholly in keeping with the thrust of the Bill. The opening sentence of the new clause states:
the appropriate authority shall arrange for qualified veterinary officers of the authority".
I phrased the new clause in that way because I am trying to give flexibility to the Government and the hon. Member for Garston. The appropriate authority would be the Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department for Scotland and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England. In Wales, it would probably be the Welsh Office Agriculture Department or the Welsh Assembly.
Under the new clause, suitably qualified veterinary officers appointed by the authority would
take possession of the animals and convey them into authority custody as soon as is reasonably practical." 
It is important for qualified veterinary officers to be in charge. I believe that mink farms are inspected by qualified Government veterinary officers—I think that the State Veterinary Service regularly inspects them. I believe that Professor Spedding's committee, the Farm Animal Welfare Council, recommended that there should be more inspections by vets of the SVS and that, when mink have

come to the end of their farm life and are to be killed for fur, the SVS is present to ensure that the method used is humane and carried out correctly. Therefore the SVS already has a role.
I have tabled an alternative new clause to state that the veterinary officers shall be from the SVS, but new clause 2 is more general, stating
veterinary officers of the authority",
in case, for whatever reason, the Government say that they cannot bog the SVS down with such duties as it has other things to do.
The Government use veterinary officers on a licensed or contractual basis—for example, to carry out meat hygiene and other inspections. MAFF already has a well-tried system whereby the Government employ or contract in veterinary officers to do their work for them. The new clause would give the Minister flexibility to use his own people or qualified veterinary officers working for the appropriate authority in each of the three countries to which it is proposed that the Bill should apply.
The new clause also states that the officers should
take possession of the animals and convey them into authority custody".
It would not be acceptable for veterinary officers to be responsible for the welfare and safety of the animals if they were left at the farm that was operating illegally and from which they had been forfeited. I accept that there is merit in not conveying animals willy-nilly around the country, and I do not envisage that happening. I am talking about merely one conveyance from a farm that has been closed down or forfeited to SVS or some other property that can be managed, controlled and easily inspected by the veterinary officers appointed by the authority.
If the animals were not conveyed into Government or veterinary officers' property, other much more complicated arrangements would have to be made whereby the vet could have daily access to them. There would have to be someone there all the time to guard them to ensure that they were looked after properly, because the farmer concerned might wash his hands of them, saying, "You have forfeited my animals."

Mr. Michael Jack: I have been following my right hon. Friend's remarks closely. With which professional bodies has he consulted as to the practicability of the new clause?

Mr. Maclean: I have not been in detailed consultation with any professional body on the practical applicability. I happily admit that that one aspect—conveying the mink from the farm to authority property—is the least desirable of all the humanitarian and welfare provisions that I have included in the new clause. The remaining provisions of new clause 2 would satisfy Government and private vets and welfare organisations because the animals would be kept in better conditions than those that would have existed on the farm. The animals should be moved from the farm being closed down to State Veterinary Service, Government or Veterinary Laboratories Agency property.
The conveyance of live mink is not the easiest thing. The Government face a choice of two evils. We either leave the animals in the farm that has been closed down, possibly in the care of the farmer who was operating


illegally and hope to goodness that he will look after them well—knowing fine that he is going out of business, so why should he care a stuff?—or convey them to a secure property to be tended by Government veterinary officers.

Mr. Jack: Who would pay for the secure facility that my right hon. Friend described and its subsequent operation and security, bearing in mind his earlier concerns about who would pay the compensation associated with the measure?

Mr. Maclean: My right hon. Friend should consider the provisions in the Bill and in my new clause 2(4), which states:
The appropriate authority shall have the right to recover from the person against whom the order was made the full costs of keeping the forfeited animals from the time the order was made until their final destruction or disposal.
My right hon. Friend may argue that, if that involves one of those who may go bankrupt, we will not get the money anyway. I would not get it under my new clause; nor would the Government under their provisions. There is always a risk that the cost might not be recovered from the person going out of business. That implies no special weakness in my new clause, which is tighter on recovering full costs. At least mine would ensure that the animals would be properly, humanely and securely tended. If the State Veterinary Service or other vets appointed by the Government are in charge, you can bet your bottom dollar that things will be done properly. I have tremendous respect for the way in which they work. There is a danger that the costs may not be recovered from whomever tends the animals.
The animals should be conveyed into appropriate authority custody. The Minister may say that it is neither good nor easy to move mink. I accept that, but to leave them in the place closed down with the person who has been put out of business is an equal evil, and I think that conveyance is slightly better.
New clause 2 also uses the phrase
as soon as is reasonably practical.
That speaks for itself. I accept that facilities might not immediately be available in MAFF property to hold the animals, but there must be facilities somewhere. Some farms have gone out of business; it may be possible for the Government to hire appropriate land and facilities under MAFF control. I am not sure whether facilities are still available at Weybridge. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but 1 think that 11 or 12 veterinary investigation centres are left; there is certainly one a few miles from my home which has been wonderfully expanded. They do not have housing facilities for mink, although they have some for other animals. It should be possible for the Government to take possession of the animals as soon as reasonably practicable.
It may not be appropriate to mention rabies control, but the Government have contingency plans and facilities for it. Perhaps some of those would be suitable if animals have to be forfeited by someone who is farming illegally.
New clause 2(2) states:
The forfeited animals shall be housed in compliance with such regulations regarding animal welfare as applied to fur farming prior to the coming into force of sections 1 to 4 of this Act.

That should be self-evident. There is a loophole on forfeiture in the Bill that has not been considered. If the Bill goes ahead and mink farming becomes illegal, what will happen to the regulations and licensing provisions currently in force? The Minister extended the licensing requirements in 1997 for three years, rather than for five as before. They will run out, and he may have to make a further order extending them for one or two years.
If the licensing requirements are no longer applicable because people have gone out of business or accepted compensation, but we find someone farming fur, what are the welfare considerations for the animals? If the Government or veterinary officers take possession, we might not need detailed regulations, because I would expect Government-appointed officers, or any vet, to look after animals with welfare and security considerations in mind. However, if the Bill stays in its present form, and the person appointed to keep the animals until final disposal is the fur farmer himself or a third party, what welfare conditions will apply? The welfare regulations would have fallen. We cannot have welfare regulations relating to animals no longer farmed. The security and licensing conditions could have fallen because the Government cannot extend the conditions of mink licensing if such licensing no longer exists.
I accept that my drafting is inadequate—I stopped being a lawyer before I got totally corrupted. I missed out security considerations. I merely suggest that the forfeited animals, whoever looks after them, must be kept in the same welfare conditions that apply now or, better still, the new conditions suggested by the Council of Europe. Europe is moving to higher cage standards and Britain would be following if the industry was not under threat.

Mr. Forth: Before my right hon. Friend tackles the highly relevant European angle, does he agree that it is bizarre that clause 3(4) states:
Where the court makes a forfeiture order, it may … impose requirements on any person in relation to the keeping of the animals concerned pending their destruction or other disposal"?
If that person was the fur farmer himself, there is an in-built illogicality because he would have little or no interest in complying with any reasonable provisions on animal welfare.

Mr. Maclean: Clause 3(4)(b) is not the same as my provision for compliance with all current animal welfare regulations and licensing conditions. If that is the Bill's intention, I would be happier if it was spelled out whether existing regulations or Council of Europe regulations were involved.
New clause 2(3) states:
The appropriate authority shall keep records of the animals forfeited, including records of their health status and mortality rates.
It is a simple point, and I would expect veterinary officers to do that in any case.
Another point is that, if someone who has been farming illegally is being put out of business and that has been argued over in court, it is vital that the Government or the vets who are looking after the animals have records so that they can defend themselves from claims that the animals they took over were healthy at the time and did not die off before their final disposal.
10 am
It may be that other records should be kept; for example, records of health status, including medicines given, and evidence of tail biting and the general health of the animals when they are forfeited. There should be monitoring of the animals throughout their time in the place where they are kept after forfeiture—wherever that may be. There should also be a record of animals that die; without going to the expense of a post-mortem, it might be obvious to any vet why an animal died. If the cause is not obvious, I do not suggest that there should be a post-mortem analysis. However, under the provision, there would be records of any animals that have died so that, at the end of the period, qualified veterinary officers are able to present a record to the court or to anyone who may make a challenge. The officers should be able to show which animals they took over, the state of the animals at the time, how they were looked after, the ones that died for various reasons, and those that remained at the end of the period, pending ultimate disposal. Those points speak for themselves, but I think that they are sensible.
A further point is that of cost. The new clause states:
The appropriate authority shall have the right to recover from the person against whom the order was made the full costs of keeping the forfeited animals from the time the order was made until their final destruction or disposal.
That provision is better and tougher than the requirement under clause 3(4)(c), which would
order the offender to pay such sum as the court may determine in respect of the reasonable expenses of carrying out the order"— 
and of keeping the animals
pending their destruction".
It should be the full cost. If the Government have appointed veterinary officers, those officers should be able to recover their full costs.
Furthermore, if the Government have not taken action through their veterinary officers or the SVS, who would be the other person? If it were the owner himself, surely he would have a vested interest in minimising his costs in looking after the animals. If it were a third party, who might be known to the owner, that third party might also be in the mink farming business. I am not sure whether the Government could find any other third parties—who were not vets—who would know much about looking after mink. That third party might be a friend of the farmer, or might know him, and could come to an agreement with him to minimise the costs of looking after the animals. They might cut corners on welfare and try to do it on the cheap. That solution would not be satisfactory to the hon. Member for Garston or to the House.
If the matter is undertaken by the Government, we all know that it will not be done on the cheap. We may be talking about looking after animals, but I know that it will be done well. I have no criticism of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on that score; I think that its veterinary officers are superb and that any other vets whom it appoints will be equally good. We can be certain that welfare and security standards will be maintained and that there will be an entitlement to the recovery of the full costs of maintaining those standards, plus any other vets' bills, health bills and the cost of final disposal—whatever that may be.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) may be right. When trying to recover those costs from the person who has been put of business, it may be found that


he has no money; admittedly, he may have some land or some assets, but the bank may already own those—as banks own most of our property. If the person has no money, that is a risk that we must take in trying to recover the costs. However, the hon. Member for Garston also takes that risk; her provisions suggest that the costs will be recovered from the person concerned. I am slightly more vicious in wanting to recover more costs than the Bill currently envisages, and in wanting to recover the full costs because the animals will be maintained by qualified veterinary officers.
The final provision under the new clause states:
The appropriate authority shall retain the forfeited animals until there is no further possibility of the order being set aside and shall then submit to the court a report setting out— 
(a) how it intends finally to dispose of the animals; 
(b) the costs incurred by the authority.
I have already covered in detail the latter point relating to costs incurred, so I will not go over that again. However, it makes sense to make a little report to the court on that matter. Such a report should not be bureaucratic or extensive, but it should be published somewhere. I did not want to propose that there should be a report to the Secretary of State, because his officers might have to prepare it. If a report is submitted to the court, there is a chance to see whether the costs are legitimate or gold-plated. We need to be able to see what was done in a simple, little report on the financial situation and on how it is intended finally to dispose of the animals. We might discuss that point under another amendment.
When we refer to the disposal of the animals, we are of course being slightly euphemistic; we need to know whether the animals will be humanely killed—as normally happens—usually by inhalation, rather than by lethal injection, captive bolt or other means. However, the animals might not be destroyed for the value of their fur; they might be exported. The meaning of "disposal" is not quite certain; we need to know what is meant by that—for example, half a dozen mink might be sent to a farm zoo and others might be sent somewhere else. I assume that disposal of the animals is equivalent to destruction. In the case of mink, it would be useful to kill them humanely and to use the pelts if they are any good. That is what I think "disposal" should mean, but the court should get that little report in case something else happens to the mink.

Mr. Paterson: As a matter of information, there are only three legal ways of killing mink: by carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide or lethal injection. Nothing else is legal.
However, a more important point is that the most likely scenario, if these farms are to be closed down, is that the mink will be transported to existing farms in the vast European industry in Denmark and Holland. Under the new clause, I am not sure how the costs of such transport would be met. It is extremely likely that farmers will move the animals. Indeed, one of the farmers in the south-west already has a much bigger farm in Denmark. There was a case in Austria in which the chap moved over the border to the Czech Republic.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall not tell the hon. Gentleman again. Interventions must be brief. He should not make a speech during an intervention.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire made a correct point during the first part of


his intervention. There are only three methods of destruction for mink, as described in the regulations: lethal injection, carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide. However, that is not necessarily disposal. I think that the hon. Member for Garston shook her head when it was suggested that the animals might be exported—I am not sure whether she shook her head, but she will speak for herself. Perhaps export is not envisaged. Although some farmers may close down and take compensation for loss of income, I suspect that, if some of the animals are immature or have not reached the age or stage at which they should be destroyed for the value of their fur, they may be disposed of by being exported. Denmark has 60 per cent. of European production and Holland has extremely good, new welfare regulations on mink.
It is possible that final disposal is not death—well, it is for all of us eventually. In the context of the Bill, however, final disposal might not be lethal injection by the Government, MAFF veterinary officers or the person concerned. I simply say that the court should know what happens to the mink that have been forfeited. The court might not worry about other mink, but, if the court has appointed a person to look after forfeited mink, the court needs to know what on earth happened to those mink. Were they killed for their fur, exported, stuck in a zoo or did something else happen to them?

Mr. Forth: Listening to my right hon. Friend's excellent analysis, it occurred to me that there is something slightly peculiar about a Bill that starts out as a welfare provision, but ends up by mandating—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Bill in its entirety; we are discussing the new clause.

Mr. Maclean: I accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The new clause attempts to make that part of the Bill more sensible and toughens it up.
I have said enough on new clause 2. I shall touch briefly on new clause 3, which I propose to the hon. Member for Garston and to the Government as an alternative to new clause 2. Because of the nature of the subject, I accept that, even if Labour Members like some parts of new clause 2, they or the Minister might not want to accept it—even in principle or in spirit, so that they could clean it up later. The hon. Lady might think that some parts of new clause 2 are sensible, but I point out that, if she and the Government cannot accept that new clause, new clause 3 is a much simpler method of trying to achieve the same thing.

Mr. Paterson: Before my right hon. Friend moves on, I should like him to answer my question. If the animals are to be exported to large farms in Europe, which is by far the likeliest scenario, how does he envisage the costs of that being borne in terms of the new clause?

Mr. Maclean: It depends who does the exporting—actually, in terms of the new clause, it would not depend on that. If the animals are forfeited, the person who takes them, whether that is a veterinary officer or the SVS, may decide that disposal of the mature animals shall be by lethal injection, or by carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide poisoning, so that the value of their fur can be obtained.

That would deal with some of the animals, but I do not think that the Government—if the Government were in charge—could do that. If the Bill is passed prohibiting the farming of animals solely for their fur, the Government cannot order animals forfeited, kill them and so obtain the value of their fur; the animals would have to be destroyed—killed and incinerated or disposed of by some other means.
With young animals, the Government may decide that the best thing to do is to kill them humanely, or to export them overseas. I do not know what they will decide. If the Government are in charge, I think that, for practical or political reasons, they will decide that they cannot sell off forfeited mink or export them to another country where they would be kept in cages—it is simply not good politics. Therefore, I think that the Government will probably have to kill all the animals and dispose of the carcases by incineration, dumping or some other legitimate method.
However, if the person responsible for disposal of the animals is not the Government, but a third party, that third party might conclude that it is perfectly sensible and legitimate to sell all the animals to an overseas operation, or to sell off the young or immature animals that can be raised to maturity and their value then obtained. I do not know who will decide what, but I believe that there is a lacuna in the Bill on that point.
In new clause 3, I offer an alternative to new clause 2. It states that the persons to whom clauses 3 and 4 refer—the person who is "authorised in writing", the person who is "appointed by the court", the person who has authority to enter the premises, or the person who will be in charge of the forfeited animals—shall be not just any old veterinary officer, but a veterinary officer of the SVS. The Minister will be able to confirm how many such officers there are—I am not trying to make a political point about their numbers. I know that they are spread around the country and have access to all parts of England and Wales, and that Scotland has a similar service under the Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department of the Scottish Office. The aim of new clause 3 is to ensure that only suitably qualified persons are given responsibility for entering premises for inspection purposes and for carrying out forfeiture orders. That offers a sensible alternative to new clause 2, and I shall say no more about it, even though there is a lot more that I could say.
At this point, I should have liked to comment on the substantial amendment that the hon. Member for Garston has not yet moved, but, for the sake of time and because it be unfair to comment on the amendment before the hon. Lady has had a chance to move it, I shall move on. Instead, I shall comment briefly on some other alternative amendments that stand in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
Amendment No. 10 would provide that disposal of animals that are the subject of a forfeiture order must be carried out in an appropriate way. I suspect that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, disposal of mink will be by means of destruction, because other means of disposal are not appropriate. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire has pointed out, methods of killing legitimately used in respect of other farm animals—for example, captive bolt—are not used for mink; as he says, there are only three legal methods of killing mink.
Again, I am trying to obtain clarification on the matter of disposal. Do the hon. Member for Garston or the Government envisage disposal being achieved by any means other than destruction? The Bill refers to "destruction or other disposal", but I am working on the assumption that, in every case, destruction will be used.

Maria Eagle: In respect of mink, disposal will be by destruction, but the Bill deals with all other fur-bearing animals that may be farmed, so a different method of disposal may be used in respect of other animals.

Mr. Maclean: I see the hon. Lady's point: in the case of mink, destruction or death by one of the three legitimate methods would be appropriate, but if someone were in the business of fox farming—I realise that there are currently no fox farms—it might be appropriate to dispose of those animals by sending them to a zoo or wildlife enclosure, or by some other acceptable means.
I am not sure whether export or removal overseas would ever be acceptable, if only because one of the Bill's main faults—a fault that we can discuss at length on Third Reading, but not now—is that it relates only to Britain, but will not make the slightest difference to Europe or the rest of the world. It would not be acceptable for the Government to ban the farming of animals in this country and then deliberately to export them overseas, even though the effect would be the same either way: the number of animals overseas would increase, because production would increase to make up for the slack caused by the ban here.
My amendment No. 10 would improve the Bill, because it would permit
disposal by other such means as the appropriate authority may specify in regulations.
Following the hon. Lady's intervention, my comments on the amendment can be brief. The amendment would give the Minister a power to make regulations in the event that farming of, say, arctic fox or some other animal were to crop up in this country. We are concerned about some of the more valuable fur rabbits that are sometimes farmed, especially in France, where at most times the fur is worth more than the meat. Under the Bill, the hon. Lady and the Minister would have a problem if someone in Britain were to start farming rabbits primarily for their fur. My amendment would provide a regulatory power to deal with farming of different sorts of fur-bearing animals which are farmed in Europe and elsewhere in the world and which might crop up in this country.
10.15 am
Amendment No. 11 would close a potential loophole in the Bill by providing for animals to be kept safely, should circumstances arise where the offender cannot afford to meet the costs of doing so. Although I am opposed to some aspects of the Bill and to some of the concepts it embodies, I recognise that it is designed to prevent unnecessary cruelty. If that is the intention behind it and if it is to be enacted, it is important that its forfeiture provisions should not give rise to cruelty by permitting circumstances to arise in which no proper provision is made for the upkeep of animals that are the subject of a forfeiture order, pending their destruction or disposal.
If a fur farmer is operating illegally and the Government order him to forfeit the animals and do not take them into state custody, but instead impose a court order on the farmer

to continue to look after them properly, my concern is to ensure that the Bill provides sufficient powers to spell out suitable arrangements so that the animals are kept in a proper condition. I have tried to make such provisions in one way, through the new clause stating that all the current welfare regulations shall be observed, but the amendment suggests taking a more general power.
Amendment No. 12 speaks for itself. It is another alternative amendment, offered because I am aware that the Government—for various reasons, including, perhaps, political ones—do not want to admit that they could ever accept a new clause that I had proposed, supported by one of my right hon. Friends. However, if the Government or the hon. Member for Garston cannot swallow my new clause, I ask them to consider amendment No. 12, which takes one part of my new clause, or drafting a better legal version of it. The intention behind the amendment is obvious, although I acknowledge that it should contain reference to security and licensing conditions. I urge the hon. Lady and the Minister to think carefully about the amendment, or about coming back with something similar, but better.
Amendment No. 13 states:
Any person appointed under subsections (a) or (b) above shall possess such qualifications or meet such criteria as the appropriate authority shall specify in regulations.
That gives the Government another alternative. My new clauses propose the appointment of veterinary officers or state veterinary officers. My amendment suggests that fur farmers or some other third party in charge of animals must be properly qualified. I would like them to have a veterinary certificate or qualification but, if they do not, the Government should specify some minimum regulation or qualification that the person in charge of the animals must possess. If a person is farming fur illegally, it is not good enough to impose a court order that says, "You are farming illegally so we will confiscate your animals, but you can look after them for the next six months until we sort out the final appeal." We must come to a better arrangement than that. That is a loophole in the Bill. If a third party is involved, he or she should be properly qualified. This issue was raised in Committee and some of my right hon. and hon. Friends may wish to allude to the Committee's considerations. However, I shall not do so at this stage.
I have taken some time to discuss the two proposed new clauses and the amendments. I think it is one of the largest and most important group of amendments and new clauses before the House today. Although I am concerned about some aspects of the Bill and its approach to dealing with a welfare problem, that is a matter for another day. I believe that new clause 2 or new clause 3 merits inclusion in the Bill, and I have explained this morning how they would improve welfare standards.
If the Government are determined to ban the keeping of animals for fur in this country, they must recognise that the Bill as drafted is full of loopholes. That is not the fault of the hon. Member for Garston, as she has had a short time in which to draft the Bill and she has been negotiating with the Minister and other interested parties in an attempt to improve it. In the short time available, it is enormously difficult for an hon. Member—

Angela Smith: If the right hon. Gentleman believes that there are deficiencies in the Bill, should he not have served on the Committee and addressed those matters there, rather than trying to talk out the Bill today?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Lady does herself a disservice by making those incorrect and slightly churlish remarks. My point is that circumstances have changed since the Bill came out of Committee. One of my colleagues served on the Committee that considered the Bill and moved these amendments. I do not think the hon. Member for Garston would have wanted 20 Conservative Members of Parliament with an interest in these matters serving on the Committee.
I suspect that the hon. Member for Garston will announce today that she has progressed further down the compensation route. However, circumstances are changing constantly on a daily basis. Even if I and all my right hon. Friends with an interest had served on the Committee, we could not have dealt with all the important issues—although, to be fair, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) addressed this loophole in Committee. The Government may wish to do something else about compensation, we have spotted some loopholes and it is important to deal with such matters on Report.
The hon. Lady will not accept all the amendments—I hope that she will not because some are contradictory. However, I hope that she and the Minister will acknowledge that there is some merits in new clause 2 and new clause 3, which I believe is vital. If the Government will not accept them, perhaps they will acquiesce to one or other of the amendments that attempt to toughen up the Bill's welfare aspects.

Maria Eagle: For the information of the House, I intend to speak only to my amendments and the Minister will address the group of other amendments and new clauses—it is a division of labour that will speed up our deliberations.
My amendments refer to an issue that arose in Committee. Their purpose is to ensure that the circumstances in which the animals can be destroyed or disposed of are not unduly restrictive. The court must be able to deal with the different situations that it may face. Clause 3 prevents the destruction or disposal of animals subject to a forfeiture order until there is no further possibility of the order being set aside. There are several lawyers in the House today—of whom I am one—and it has occurred to me that that relevant length of time could be inordinate. I gave an undertaking in Committee to reconsider clause 3(3). I have concluded that it should be removed and replaced with a discretion exercised by the court.
I have appeared as an advocate in many courts and I am confident that the court will use any discretion that it is given by the House sensibly on a case-by-case basis in a way that is appropriate to the particular circumstances. Under the existing clause, the animals might not be destroyed straight away—even if there were no third party interests—if a further appeal was possible. For that reason, I propose to delete clause 3(3) and to insert a discretion for the court to make a proper order in the relevant circumstances. I do not believe there will be any problems with the measure, and I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Paterson: I represent a rural constituency where wild mink are becoming an increasing problem. They cause terrible damage to the environment: water rats and many ground-nesting birds have been eliminated by wild mink. Unless the transfer of farmed mink is thought through carefully, there is a danger that large numbers of them will be released accidentally or carelessly. I do not think the changeover has been thought through properly.
There were two catastrophic releases of mink last year by animal rights activists in Hampshire and in Staffordshire. Those incidents were animal welfare disasters and the mink suffered terribly. Many returned to the farm the following evening to be fed, many were run over and many died because they could not survive in the wild. However, some did survive, and that will lead eventually to an ecological disaster, affecting ground-nesting birds, water rats and voles. It is most important to work out carefully the Bill's technical details because the moment it is passed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot talk about the Bill in its entirety; he must address specifically the new clause before us or the other amendments grouped with it.

Mr. Paterson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The new clause seeks to clarify who is responsible for the welfare of the mink because mink farmers will have no reason to bother at all. It is not clear how solid the compensation will be. There is also a danger—this is a serious point—that animal rights activists will view the legislation as a triumph and might break into mink farms.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must keep at the hon. Gentleman. The title of the new clause is
Appropriate authority responsibility for forfeited animals".
That is what the hon. Gentleman must concentrate on: he must speak to the new clauses and to the amendments before us.

Mr. Paterson: I thought that I was. I am talking about the animals which will be transferred to the responsibility of another authority as soon as the Bill is passed. New clause 2(2) states:
The forfeited animals shall be housed in compliance with such regulations regarding animal welfare as applied to fur farming prior to the coming into force of sections 1 to 4 of this Act.
There is a raft of current European and national regulation on fur farms. I am not sure how my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), who moved the new clause, views the continuation of the regulation. From the moment when responsibility for the animals is transferred from mink owners, they will no longer have any interest in looking after them.

Angela Smith: I am bemused by the hon. Gentleman's comments. Is he suggesting that mink owners are so irresponsible that they would release their mink into the wild? Surely they would not.

Mr. Paterson: No, I am suggesting that human beings will look to their self-interest. Some mink farmers are being terrorised at the moment.

Maria Eagle: They are looking to their own self-interest, and they are in favour of the Bill, which the hon. Gentleman is now attempting to talk out.

Mr. Paterson: Well, we may come to who is in favour of the Bill and who is not later, but I do not want to provoke you again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall return to the subject in hand, which is new clause 2, which states:
such regulations regarding animal welfare as applied to fur farming prior to the coming into force of sections 1 to 4 of this Act
will apply.
The Mink Keeping Order 1998 enables the keeping of farm mink in the UK under licence and imposes strict conditions on the caging of mink and the security of mink farms.

Maria Eagle: Desperate.

Mr. Paterson: The hon. Lady says, "Desperate." I am worried about a large number of domestic mink being released. I have seen the damage on the Welsh borders caused by wild mink. If the Bill's introduction is not properly handled, many mink will, irresponsibly, be released. That is a genuine danger.

Maria Eagle: I am amazed by the hon. Gentleman's assumption, because the Bill phases out mink farming. It gives mink farmers several years to settle their affairs, receive their compensation and leave the industry. That is why they are in favour of it. That process will not happen overnight. The Bill will not completely phase out mink farming until 2002.

Mr. Paterson: The hon. Lady underestimates the precarious nature of many of those farms. They are under threat. Many of them are in suburban areas.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Bill offers compensation to those who are under threat, which is why it is supported by the Fur Breeders Association and the National Farmers Union. It is right that those issues are examined democratically on Report, but hon. Members know that there are ways of doing so and making progress with the Bill. No progress is being made, and people will conclude that the delay is the result of deliberate actions by Conservative Members.

Mr. Paterson: That is rather an unhelpful contribution. As I said, I come from an predominantly rural area where mink are a major problem. The Minister must realise that fur farmers will have their income taken away, so they will be looking to their future and their first priority will not be the welfare or security of the mink. That is what I am worried about.

Mr. Mike Hancock: The hon. Gentleman obviously misses the point of the Bill. Has he spoken to any mink farmers who have said to him that the minute the Bill becomes law, they will release their mink into the wild as an act of vengeance on the public for supporting the Government in passing the legislation? What evidence is there to support what he is saying?

Mr. Paterson: I have visited a mink farm and spoken to several farmers. I have also spoken to several European

farmers in the industry, to whom I may refer later. I have no evidence that the farmers will act irresponsibly, but there is a great deal of evidence that members of the animal rights movement and the Bill's supporters outside the House would act irresponsibly. That is a real danger.

Mr. Maclean: The new clause deals with the forfeiture to be imposed on people who illegally continue, or begin, to farm after the Bill's introduction. Their animals would be liable to be forfeited. In those cases, we will be dealing with someone who is irresponsible and who is breaking the law. I am concerned that my new clause should ensure that the person who is appointed to look after those animals is suitably qualified and does not let them escape into the wild. The welfare regulations must apply in those cases.

Mr. Paterson: Yes, but is my right hon. Friend aware of the onerous burden of regulation that is currently imposed on farmers?

Mr. Maclean: Yes, I am aware of it. I did not refer to regulations in detail, but I mentioned some of them. My new clause simply contains a broad catch-all stating that all the regulations currently in force should apply in the case of forfeiture. Although I did not read out all the regulations, I think that they should all be included.

Mr. Paterson: My right hon. Friend should understand just how extensive those regulations are. I have mentioned the Mink Keeping Order 1998, which is particularly concerned with security and is absolutely vital in ensuring that mink do not escape. Most of the other regulations relate to the standards of welfare for mink on the farms.
The main one is the European Union directive on farm animal welfare, which has been in force since 1998. That improved conditions on mink farms by laying down general provisions on the welfare of all farm animals and harmonising standards for EU countries. It is based on the European convention for the protection of animals kept for fanning purposes. The convention's definition of a farm animal is
any animal kept for the production of food, wool, skin or fur.
That is one of the regulations that would apply under new clause 2(3) in the name of my right hon. Friend.
Another, the terms of which are in some ways more onerous, is the European convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I must say to the hon. Gentleman that he is talking about regulations introduced in connection with other legislation. The Bill would enforce those regulations, but he cannot speak about them in detail; he must speak to the new clause before us. We know what those regulations are because they are already on the statute book.

Mr. Paterson: I am just not convinced that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border knows the extent of those regulations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman need not worry about his right hon. Friend; I shall worry about his right hon. Friend.

Mr. Paterson: We are discussing my right hon. Friend's new clause, which imposes severe burdens and responsibilities on another body. I accept your point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall briefly mention the Mink Keeping Regulations 1975 and the Mink Keeping (Amendment) Regulations 1998 without going into their detail. The broad provisions of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 are also relevant.
My point is that onerous responsibilities are imposed by European and domestic law on those who look after mink. I am not convinced that my right hon. Friend has thought through his new clause or that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) has worked out the detail of who will take responsibility for mink when the Bill comes into force. Forfeiture could go wrong, and that would, as I have said, lead to a serious disaster in the countryside where I live. I should like a serious reply from the Minister and the hon. Lady, because they have not thought that through.

Maria Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that 10 of the 11 remaining mink farmers want to leave the industry? They will leave before the date on which the industry will become unlawful if the Bill is passed. That date is 2002. That would leave one mink farmer, who is, I am told, a very responsible man. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should be so concerned.

Mr. Paterson: Well, that reveals the great gulf between the urban interest that the hon. Lady represents and the rural interest that I represent. There is a terrible lack of understanding of the current impact of wild mink and of the devastation that they will cause if the phasing out of the industry is not handled correctly.

Maria Eagle: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there are already feral mink populations outside almost every fur farm? The Bill would not remove feral mink from the country.

Mr. Paterson: I am not suggesting that. I am suggesting that they are already a menace and cause damage. We do not want to add one more domestic mink to their number, even if the poor thing were unlikely to survive.

Angela Smith: If the hon. Gentleman accepts that there are already feral mink outside mink farms because they have escaped or been released for whatever reason, does not he accept that if there were no mink farms in the country, there would be far less chance of mink escaping?

Mr. Paterson: It is very unfair on the mink farmers to suggest that. All the mink that have been released have been released because of terrorists—

Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He should get his facts right.

Mr. Paterson: I am glad to see that consensus politics has broken out this Friday morning. I do live in a rural area, and I have seen the damage that feral mink cause. To answer the hon. Lady's first intervention—she interrupted me before I could complete my answer—there

have been no irresponsible releases by mink farmers. The recent releases have been caused by animal rights activists.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is not right. In the early days, before the mink keeping orders were invented by MAFF, most of the escapes were accidental and the result of farmers' incompetence. In recent years, the mass escapes have all been caused by animal terrorists.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are now definitely straying away from new clause 2, so we must get back to the new clause and the accompanying amendments.

Mr. Paterson: I entirely agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am afraid that I shall leave the interventions for the moment.
The new clause requires:
The appropriate authority shall keep records of the animals forfeited, including records of their health status and mortality rates.
That is a thoroughly sensible suggestion, which I hope will be endorsed by the hon. Member for Garston.
The new clause also states:
The appropriate authority shall have the right to recover from the person against whom the order was made the full costs of keeping the forfeited animals from the time the order was made until their final destruction or disposal.
I am not at all happy with that, because I consider that much the most likely route for disposal is export.
The hon. Member for Garston suggested that the only disposal route would be extermination. As she sees it, all the mink on these farms will be put down. Is that statement correct? That is what I understood from one of her interventions. The industry in this country is now tiny. Those mink farmers that exist have good contacts with the enormous industry in Denmark and in Holland, and almost certainly they would want to export the mink.
I am not sure about three aspects. First—I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border gave me a clear answer when I intervened on him—who will pay the costs of transport? Secondly, if the animals are exported, at what point will responsibility for the mink pass to the new owner? Thirdly, who is responsible for the welfare of the animals in transit? I hope that the third point is covered by the new clause, but I do not think that my right hon. Friend had thought that through.

Maria Eagle: If the Bill passes, the industry will not become unlawful until the end of 2002. Between now and then, most of those who are in the industry will choose to leave it—they have told me so. They will dispose of their mink as they wish. Clauses 2 and 3 deal with forfeiture, and will come into effect only after the industry has become unlawful. It is highly unlikely that they will ever be used, so the hon. Gentleman's concerns have little foundation.

Mr. Paterson: It is a dangerous basis for legislation to pass on a wing and a prayer and with the words, "It is highly unlikely". Magistrates will have the power to impose fines of £20,000 on someone, in a court of law, on the basis of laws that we pass in the House. The hon. Lady should think through the consequences for the


magistrates involved. We cannot simply pass laws, saying "It is unlikely to happen", and hope that the magistrates wing it when the problem comes along. We should debate such problems today and thrash them out. I am pointing out some of the practical problems that may arise from the Bill, and which are not entirely remedied by new clause 2. I am trying to be practical by looking ahead.
New clause 3 takes a different route, trying to solve the original problem. It reads:
Persons authorised or appointed under sections 3 or 4 shall be veterinary officers of the State Veterinary Service.
I believe that the new clause would impose unnecessary restrictions on the discretion of Ministers and the courts, and make the whole business even more complicated. It is most unlikely that either would authorise an inappropriate person to carry out inspections or enforce or carry out orders, but it brings us back to the fact that mink need specialist care.
10.45 am
The existing mink farmers have been in the business for 30 or 40 years. A farmer that I talked to in the south-west, who has the biggest operation, really knows how to look after mink properly. Will a state veterinary officer—who, in a rural area, is probably more interested in cattle, horses and pigs—know exactly what is best for the welfare of mink? I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border may hang too much on the skills of state vets. However, it is an interesting route, and the new clause tries to address the original problem.
Amendment No. 10 provides that disposal of the animals which are subject to a forfeiture order must be carried out in an appropriate way. There are only three legal ways of disposing of animals if they are to be killed—gassing by carbon monoxide, gassing by carbon dioxide, and lethal injection. There is no other option.

At Second Reading, some wild and incorrect statements were made about electrocution. The putting down of mink is probably one of the most humane elements of the business. The entire operation takes 15 to 30 seconds. The animals are unconscious in 15 seconds and dead in 30 seconds. They are put down in the yard where they live—no transport is involved, as for other farm animals.
I hope that the hon. Member for Garston endorses the fact that disposal must be correctly carried out. Farmers tell me that mink on farms live in reasonable contentment, and that they are put down by skilful people who know how to handle them. People who are not used to handling mink could make the last few hours or days of their lives fairly traumatic. What is intended to be an animal welfare Bill may turn out to be the opposite.
Amendment No. 11 would insert the words:
where the offender demonstrates that he is incapable of paying the required sum to the court, or keeping the animals himself, make suitable arrangements for the animals to be kept in a proper condition.
Effectively, it provides for the court to make necessary arrangements for the animals to be kept in the correct conditions while awaiting destruction. That seems to me eminently sensible, but I should like to know how it would work if the animals were to be exported. We cannot proceed on a wing and a prayer, like the hon. Member for Garston, in the hope that that is unlikely to happen. We must know how things will work when the animals are exported.
Being cynical, I am not sure that the measure will work, because it is very easy to prove that one is skint. If the burden is on the person to pay, he will rapidly be able to prove that he lacks the resources, and cannot pay. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border is being naive. We are talking about people whose livelihoods will be destroyed. Everything that they have built up over 30 or 40 years will be taken away from them in one blow. I understand that they are all middle-aged. They are unlikely to have time to rebuild their lives. They will jolly well do their best not to pay. My right hon. Friend is naive in thinking that they will stump up. I believe that they will turn themselves upside-down and work it out with their accountants to prove that they are incapable of paying. My right hon. Friend has not thought that out.
Amendment No. 13 states:
Any person appointed under subsections (a) or (b) … shall possess such qualifications or meet such criteria as the appropriate authority shall specify in regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), who is, sadly, not present, tabled a similar, sensible amendment in Committee but, unfortunately, it did not succeed.
The Bill does not say who should carry out the forfeiture order. We have repeatedly brought pressure to bear on that subject. If the Minister intends to speak on this group of amendments, I should like him to say what the timetable will be and exactly where the responsibilities will fall. The only people who really understand how to look after mink are the farmers, and the handover of responsibility is crucial. [Interruption.] Would the Minister like to intervene? I did not quite hear his sedentary muttering.

Mr. Morley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Paterson: I return to what I said at the beginning. As I live in a rural area, I am gravely concerned about the environmental consequences. Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border has done his best in going through the various new clauses in an attempt to improve this flawed Bill—

Mr. Maclean: Given that my hon. Friend lives in a rural area, he will have come across the State Veterinary Service, which consists of highly professional vets in the employment of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Does he agree that if the person appointed by the appropriate authority is from the SVS, many of his fears will have been allayed? Is not that amendment more meritorious than others that I have recommended?

Mr. Paterson: Yes, I have great admiration for the State Veterinary Service and its knowledge. However, the fur farmers are immensely skilled. They have long years of experience and know exactly what are the nutritional requirements of those animals. Much more importantly, they can recognise symptoms. Yesterday, one of them described an animal welfare film that he had seen and said that he could immediately diagnose what was wrong with the animal in the film. Much as I admire the SVS, and although I totally agree that there should be an overriding body with veterinary knowledge, I feel that the best people to do that job are the mink farmers. The problem


is that there is absolutely no incentive in the Bill to see the job done properly. I entirely agree that someone must be made responsible.
The amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Garston give the courts discretion to decide whether an animal should be destroyed or disposed of, pending appeals or other applications, and to make decisions in relation to forfeiture and other orders specified in the Bill. As I said earlier, my concern is that this is not just a domestic matter. European fur breeders are watching our proceedings this morning carefully to see what happens. They have told me that it is highly likely that they will pursue this matter through the courts to the heights of European jurisdiction.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, the hon. Gentleman is straying from the new clause under consideration. I have told him about that before. He must not do that.

Mr. Paterson: I am referring to amendment No. 3, which states:
"make such provision as the court considers appropriate in relation to the operation of the order pending the making or determination of any appeal or application relevant to the order."
I really am trying to stay in order. If this matter is taken to the European Court—you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may share my opinion of lawyers—it will take an inordinate time. An appeal could run for several years. I talked to those concerned this morning—I gave their names earlier and need not repeat them. They are deadly serious because they regard this as the thin end of the wedge, to use a hackneyed phrase. They have told me that they will probably defend one of the larger fur farmers in this country.
We are not talking about a little domestic industry that can be rubbed out and compensated by the Government gaily throwing a few million pounds at it; we are entering a major battle on the European mainland. Those are serious industries in Denmark, which is the largest producer with some 11 million mink out of a world production of some 26 million, and in Holland. There are some 8,000 farms in Europe, and they will not let this matter go lightly.
The hon. Member for Garston, and perhaps also the Minister, have underestimated quite how much they have taken on. It is interesting to note that they have not telephoned those Europeans. This morning I talked to the chairman and vice-chairman of the organisation concerned, but neither the hon. Lady nor the Minister has done so. We could become involved in a very lengthy European wrangle in the courts, arising from the terms of an appeal under amendment No. 3. No one has really thought the matter through.

Mr. Morley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Paterson: The Minister is shaking his head. I hope that when he sums up he will give me satisfaction on this point.

Angela Smith: Well sit down then.

Mr. Paterson: We have plenty of time. I am trying to point out the practical problems in the Bill, which will

arise because the hon. Member for Garston has not had the courtesy, or rather has not taken the time, to ring the head of the organisation that runs the industry in Europe. That is bizarre.

Maria Eagle: It is amazing that the Euro-sceptic wing of the Tory party now wants us to be ruled by Europe. We are legislating for this country, which is what my Bill does.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is following the Prime Minister.

Mr. Paterson: Yes. I think that the inscription on the medal that the Prime Minister received yesterday reads "Peace and Murder".
The hon. Lady fails to understand that this industry is already covered by European legislation—she did not like me reading out all the European legislation that covers it—so she is already party to it. There is a genuine case, on the grounds of proportionality—

Maria Eagle: What?

Mr. Paterson: It is quite clear that the hon. Lady has not discussed this. I am making a fundamental point. She will embroil the United Kingdom Government in a lengthy and expensive court case, which could be taken to the heights of European jurisdiction. Moreover, I think that we would probably lose. The European fur farmers have much more to lose than the 10 or 11 left in this country, who have been terrorised. We are talking about a significant European industry, which produces 11 million pelts a year in Denmark alone. The hon. Member for Garston mocks, but I may have touched on something fundamental here. I am concerned that she has not thought out the ramifications of the Bill and the length of time that a court case such as that proposed in amendment No. 3 would take.

Mr. Maclean: I did not want to criticise the hon. Member for Garston because she has been kind and courteous in discussing this Bill with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and me, but she is wrong to say that we can legislate solely for this country, as though this issue were removed from what is happening in Europe. This industry is already covered by the EU directive on farm animal welfare. I do not particularly like that, because I think that we could do it better on our own, nevertheless we are covered by it.
If we make this gesture in legislation today, it will make not the slightest difference to the welfare of mink in Europe and the world; it will simply mean that more mink will be farmed.

Mr. Paterson: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
The new clause would allow a court to order the destruction or disposal of animals before an appeal was sought. Those appeals would take a long time. Has the Minister given any consideration to the contravention of European law, and to the fundamentals of the treaty of Rome and free trade, on which basis those in Europe believe that they have a case?

Mr. Morley: I shall respond briefly to the points that have been made. We had quite a long debate on these


issues in Committee, when the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) raised the matter in a constructive manner in an attempt to get answers as part of the democratic process of scrutinising legislation, which is right and appropriate. Some hon. Members who have spoken this morning have not done that.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) for the way in which she has dealt with this Bill and involved welfare groups, fur farmers, myself and the Ministry, and hon. Members who represent fur farmers in their constituencies. As part of those discussions, the Government have said that we are prepared to consider concessions in relation to compensation and other aspects of the Bill. However, those concessions are significant and it will require time to draw up the appropriate amendments. We are not, therefore, in a position to advise on amendments at this stage. That will have to be done when the Bill reaches the other place.
If the Bill does not pass its Report stage, those concessions cannot be made. I can give no guarantee that we shall return to the matter at a future date.

Mr. Maclean: I heard what the Minister said and I am a bit surprised by it. This measure was a commitment in his party's manifesto. We are now more than two years into the life of the Government, and the Minister is saying that unless we let the Bill, with all the bits that he cannot tell us about, through to another place today, it may fail. Surely there has been time for the Minister to give the House of Commons a Bill with the vital compensation provisions worked out in advance. Instead, he asks us to trust the other place to do that, when his party clearly does not trust it.

11 am

Mr. Morley: There will be an opportunity to discuss compensation later, so I do not want to be drawn into that. Suffice it to say that the Bill contains compensation provisions and, as a result of helpful and pragmatic discussions with the National Farmers Union and others, we are prepared to accept some of the points that were raised in Committee and to broaden the scope of that compensation. However, there will be no opportunity to achieve that if the Bill does not progress, which would greatly disadvantage the fur farmers.
I must emphasise that the fur farmers want the Bill to progress. Many of them are in some financial difficulties because of the state of the market, so we have an opportunity to assist them. The Bill meets a number of criteria in a pragmatic way.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, as ever. He said that he is prepared to accept points that were made in Committee; if that is the case, why have neither the Bill's promoter nor he sought to amend the Bill in the House to take account of those points and put everyone's mind at rest?

Mr. Morley: In some cases, as a matter of interpretation, the Bill would not need amending in that respect. In other cases, some of what we are prepared to concede following discussions requires careful thought and drafting. We do not have the opportunity to do that at this stage, but there would be such an opportunity in

the democratic process if the Bill returned to the House of Lords, which would give hon. Members the chance to review it in its final form.
I am suspicious that certain Members of the House have no intention of allowing the Bill to go through its democratic process. That is for others to judge, but it is possible to give the Bill proper and appropriate scrutiny at this stage, and to do that briefly and succinctly. Hon. Members could receive the assurances that they want and allow the Bill to progress, but, if experienced Members of the House do not want that to happen, the danger is that people outside the House will draw their own conclusion that a minority quite arrogantly want to frustrate the democratic process and all the work and proper consultation that has been done on the Bill.

Mr. Maclean: I am concerned about the Minister's remarks. He seems to be suggesting that if the Bill does not conclude all its stages today—he admits that it needs substantial amendment and says that the House cannot make a final judgment on it—there is no prospect of it becoming law in future. Surely this is a Government measure. Surely it is in his hands, once he has completed his consultation, to reintroduce it immediately in the next Session of Parliament. With the Government's in-built majority, no one in any corner of the House could stop it.

Mr. Morley: That is not what I said at all. The Government have made it clear that they are committed to the ending of fur farming as soon as is practicable and have been considering all ways of achieving that. Given that there is consensus between those people who are directly affected by it, the private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston is an adequate vehicle for doing that.
I have mentioned extra aspects in the Bill which the Government do not think are strictly necessary, but, in the spirit of good will and negotiation, we have been prepared to extend our consideration as part of the democratic process and the scrutiny of the Bill. I would hope that hon. Members will support that and not frustrate it at this stage by wasting time, but that is for others to judge.
We do not think that new clause 2 is necessary. It would mean that the Ministry would have to take possession of minks, subject to a forfeiture order, until there is no possibility of the order being set aside. Fur farmers keeping mink after a forfeiture order was issued would still be subject to animal welfare legislation. There would be no change in that, so there would be no advantage in transferring custody of the animals to the Ministry or to some other site. A site can be properly regulated because those powers already exist, so a transfer would lead to an unnecessary call on public funds. I strongly advise against accepting the new clause.
New clause 3 would mean that only vets of the State Veterinary Service could enter a fur farm to check for an offence or to issue a forfeiture order. I certainly concur with the praise that has been lavished on the SVS, which is an excellent organisation, but it is not appropriate to restrict the provision simply to SVS vets. Other bodies and other offices of MAFF, such as the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency, are involved.
Other vets, who could be directed by the courts, might also be involved. The courts have the power to appoint an appropriate person, and they are likely to appoint someone who has the necessary skills. The keeping and destruction of mink following the issue of a forfeiture order will still be subject to animal welfare legislation. That would apply to any person appointed by the court to carry out the order, whether he was a member of the SVS or not.
I certainly concur with the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston in respect of her amendments. Amendments Nos. 4, 10 and 11 to 13 would ensure that the forfeited animals were kept under the same welfare standards as applied before forfeiture. I emphasise that, after forfeiture, the mink would still be subject to existing animal welfare legislation. That applies equally to whoever is keeping the animals under the forfeiture order and therefore there is no need for the amendments.

Mr. Forth: I am rather astonished by some of the Minister's remarks, not least because he is sitting on the Front Bench from which more than 20 private Members' Bills have been obstructed in this Session of Parliament. This sanctimonious humbug from the Minister about there being something precious and special about private Members' Bills and him being the custodian of them is utter nonsense. If he consulted some of his colleagues on the Front Bench, they would confirm that more than 20 private Members' Bills have been obstructed by the Government this Session.
The Minister said another astonishing thing: "Let the House of Commons not fulfil its duty in completing its proper scrutiny of the Bill, but allow the Bill to go to the other place." The Government complain that they do not have political control in the other place, but instead the Minister says that, somehow, he will guarantee that unspecified improvements will be made there. That stretches credulity way beyond breaking point, so let us hear no more nonsense and humbug; let us get on with considering the Bill and forget all this cheap politicking in which the Minister has been indulging.
I want to return to the provisions of clause 3, which the Minister barely touched on and which is the subject of amendments that we are considering. The more that I listen to the debate, the more that my initial anxieties are strengthened. When I first read clause 3, it occurred to me that, perhaps uncharacteristically, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle)—who is normally assiduous in these matters and who could, with her fine legal brain, normally be expected to see all the strengths and weaknesses of such a provision—has been unable to deal with the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), despite all the help that she has had from the interest groups, from those who want to get their hands on the money and from the Minister.
Paradoxically, the points made by my right hon. Friend and by my hon. Friend have to do with the welfare of the animals involved. It seems that all Labour Members are

worried about is getting taxpayers' money into the pockets of the farmers whom they are in the process of putting out of business. We have heard that over and over again this morning. They say, "It's all right; the people whose businesses will be ended by the Bill have said that that is fine, as long as we give them enough taxpayers' money." The only argument that is put to us concerns how much money is involved. That is hardly a highly principled point of view. It is a point of view that I concede, not one I share, nor one that I find at all convincing.
I do not agree that the role of the House is to devise legislation that puts people out of business and then gives them taxpayers' money in compensation. That is not how I see it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was mentioning these matters in passing, but it looks as though he is about to go into detail on compensation.

Mr. Forth: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman says no; I am pleased to hear that, because I should like to hear about new clause 2, which refers to forfeited animals.

Mr. Forth: As ever, I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, acquainted as you are with the running order, there will be a debate on compensation later. Compensation will probably be the main debate of the day: this is just an appetizer. I do not want to fire my ammunition now. I want to keep it for later when we get round to discussing compensation.
You are quite right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the new clause is about forfeiture and what follows on from that. My worries evolve from clause 3(4). We are talking about the court making a forfeiture order and the ethos and the environment surrounding that. As Labour Members have said, the circumstances may be usual, but they are certainly potentially stressful. Someone will be subject to a court forfeiture, something that is always rather intimidating in itself. Under clause 3(4), the court will appoint a person to carry out the order and impose requirements on that person. It also refers to the "destruction or other disposal" of the animal, which is key to the consideration of this whole matter.
My hon. Friends and I are worried that the Bill is not sufficiently precise to guarantee the highest possible standards of protection for the animals. We think that that would be relatively simple to achieve, and that is the burden of our amendments. To expect the court to be sufficiently omniscient and infallible to appoint an appropriate person is not adequate in the context of the Bill. The hon. Member for Garston has told us from the start that she is concerned about animal welfare. That is why she is supported by as many as seven Labour Members in the Chamber today. Regrettably, no Liberal Democrats are present. Those Labour Members, all seven of them, want to express their support for the Bill and their desire to improve animal welfare. Yet my hon. Friends and I have found an important loophole in clause 3.
The nature of the person who will carry out the order, or on whom the requirements will be placed, was the subject of an interesting debate in Committee. The issue was raised mainly by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), but the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), who is regrettably not here today, also expressed some views on it. In Committee, the hon. Member for Lewes said that points had been legitimately raised. He went on to talk in a Liberal Democrat way about belts and braces, and then he asked whether the promoter of the Bill would
"return later if necessary to incorporate the amendments' provisions"—
that is the amendments that were being discussed in Committee. The hon. Lady said:
I shall raise that with the Ministry and find out whether it has spotted any such loophole. I would not want such a loophole to remain, but I am not convinced that it exists, which is why I do not intend to accept the amendments today. However, I certainly undertake to return to the matter later during the Bill's passage if there is a problem."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 31 March 1999; c. 26.]
We have been at pains to try to persuade the hon. Lady that there is a problem. That is the whole point of these proceedings, on which the Minister poured such scorn. He did not seem to think that we should be having these proceedings. That is typical of Ministers in this Government: they do not want the House of Commons to spend much time considering legislation. They would rather that it was whizzed through, provided that they agree with it—not the 20 Bills that the Minister and his hon. Friends have killed, but those that he wants. That is a matter for the Minister, but the hon. Lady, in her typically reasonable way, said that she would consider those matters and return to them if necessary. We are trying to persuade her to do that. She has not yet been persuaded, but I hope that she still can be, because we are trying to strengthen her Bill. We are trying to make the provisions more feasible and workable. It was in that spirit that we tabled the amendments.
11.15 am
We are worried about the nature of the person carrying out the order and on whom the requirements will be imposed. We are also concerned about disposal. The Bill refers to the "destruction or other disposal" of the animals. It is an irony that a measure that is supposed to be so concerned about the welfare of animals ends up dealing with their disposal or destruction. That is a sad fact.
People who support this measure and want to impose their views on others through this prohibition legislation express concern that animals should be raised for their fur. The Bill provides that those very same animals will be destroyed or disposed of, which hardly strikes me as a giant step forward, but that is a matter on which each of us must make our own judgment.
With the amendments and new clauses, we want to be as satisfied as we reasonably can be that disposal or destruction will be carried out in a way that is acceptable even to those who say that they support the Bill and want to see it carried through properly. Amendment No. 10 would provide that disposal would be by
such means as the appropriate authority may specify in regulations.

I would have thought that that was completely non-contentious. Rather than the Bill making no comment, it would be more reassuring to those who support the Bill's aims and objectives to have that form of words.

Maria Eagle: It is fascinating that the right hon. Gentleman is proposing more regulations. He usually argues that there is too much legislation, especially secondary legislation, but, all of a sudden, he wants more.

Mr. Forth: It is because I am the genuine animal welfare enthusiast. It is not me who is talking about destruction and disposal: the hon. Lady is. I am saying, in a humane sort of way, that, if we are going to do this—I have made it clear from the start that I do not want to do it, because I do not share her view—

Maria Eagle: If the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to the principle of the Bill, why did he not vote against it on Second Reading? He could have divided the House.

Mr. Forth: We did not want to waste time; we wanted to press on, and that is a matter of record.
The hon. Lady should be prepared to make a distinction. It is perfectly possible for some of us to be unhappy with the philosophical basis of the legislation, with the rush to ban and prohibit, with the desire by a group of people in the House and outside to impose their views on others. I do not like that. Earlier this week, I opposed another Bill, from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), which sought to ban something of which he disapproved. The hon. Lady is right, that is not where I come from, but we are no longer discussing the principle of the Bill. Mr. Deputy Speaker would be the first to tell me if I attempted to do so.
The Bill, having been through Committee, is now on Report, when the House of Commons has the opportunity to examine again, reflectively and properly, the detail of it to see whether it can be improved. The new clauses and amendments are an attempt by my right hon. and hon. Friends to improve the Bill. We are no longer debating the principle of the Bill; we are having an important discussion of its detailed provisions. The issue of disposal is simple. Do we accept the current wording, or do we want to pin it down more accurately and helpfully by adding the words
"disposal by other such means as the appropriate authority may specify"?
Amendment No. 11 deals with a different aspect. It states that
"where the offender demonstrates that he is incapable of paying the required sum to the court, or keeping the animals himself'
he is required to
make suitable arrangements for the animals to be kept in a proper condition.
An important point has worried me right from the first time I saw the Bill. There is a paradox built into it. It stems from a desire for prohibition and provides a mechanism to ban the raising of animals for their fur. Clause 3 deals with forfeitures, and it rather peculiarly implies that there is at least the possibility that the very same person who has committed the offence will keep the animals.
My hon. Friends and I feel that, in the event of such a person being driven out of business and, perhaps, being no longer capable of functioning, with the result that suitable alternative arrangements had to be made, it would be our responsibility to ensure, as far as we reasonably could, that the animals were looked after properly. We feel that circumstances might arise in which animals would suffer as a result of a measure that is designed primarily for their protection.
Clause 3 is full of such weaknesses. We want—not unreasonably, I think—to zero in on the possibility of the financial incapacity or incapability of the keeper of the animals. We suggest that the Bill should go further than the mechanisms for which it already provides, and include a provision for the making of suitable arrangements for the animals to be kept in proper conditions.
I should have thought that that was totally uncontroversial. Indeed, I should have thought that it would improve the Bill. Here again, we have a paradox: the Minister himself has said that he thinks that parts of the Bill could be improved. The record will show that he was prepared to accept that; yet neither he nor the Bill's promoter saw fit, between the Committee stage—during which many of these matters were teased out—and Report stage to present a series of helpful, positive and uncontroversial amendments. Apart from two or three amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Garston herself, with which I shall deal shortly, we have nothing.
I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to put his faith in the House of Lords; but it is astonishing, is it not, that a Minister in a Government who have said repeatedly that they distrust the House of Lords, that, as it is currently composed, it is offensive and unacceptable and that they regret the Government's lack of control over it should now say, "Trust the House of Lords. Trust us, the Government. Do not worry, House of Commons; speed the Bill on its way here, and we will sort it out in the House of Lords." That is the most astonishing argument that I have heard in a long time, even from those on the current Government Front Bench. Let us hear no more of it: we are tabling amendments, here in the House of Commons, to improve the Bill. I hope that it is not too late to persuade the hon. Lady to accept them.
Amendment No. 12 states:
Where the court orders an offender to make a payment in accordance with subsection (c) above, it shall take into consideration the cost of keeping the animals concerned in compliance with such regulations regarding animal welfare as applied to fur farming prior to the coming into force
of clauses in the Bill. That, too, strikes me as uncontroversial. We are attempting to put beyond doubt the need to ensure, as far as we possibly can, that the animals are looked after properly in what we all acknowledge would be difficult, stressful circumstances. Goodness knows, the circumstances are stressful enough for some people now; we can only begin to imagine how much more stressful they would be if the Bill were enacted. We must take whatever measures we reasonably and properly can to secure the welfare of the animals.
As ever, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border spoke about new clause 3 in a knowledgeable and experienced fashion. It is clear from what Labour Members have said—including the hon.

Member for Garston and, I think, the Minister—that they do not expect a large number of people or, probably, animals to be affected by this part of the Bill. Earlier, my right hon. Friend was challenged about whether enough members of the State Veterinary Service, or enough facilities, would be available. I think that that question answers itself: it is unlikely that a large number of farms and animals will be involved.
Of course, we do not know that for sure. It is, I suppose, possible—although unlikely—that more farms could come into being, that farms might change their nature or even that farms might start dealing with different animals between now and the enactment of the Bill. Farms might spring up in Northern Ireland, for example.

Mr. Maclean: I assure my right hon. Friend that one thing has not changed. In the event of an outbreak of disease among, for instance, pigs in Yorkshire, or a rabies outbreak—which we have not experienced yet—the State Veterinary Service will have the capacity to be flexible, to move around the country and to home in on problem areas. If we assume that there will not be farms of this kind all over the United Kingdom, and that there will be only a few instances of forfeiture, it should be possible for the service to deal with those instances.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's knowledge of those matters. That was certainly my assumption, and I do not consider it unreasonable.
I do not agree with earlier criticisms of my right hon. Friend by those who suggested that there would not be enough veterinary officers. We are legitimately trying to nail this down really firmly: new clause 3, which is a perfectly reasonable measure, seeks to reassure all who are worried that professionals will be involved.
I shall not dwell at length on new clause 2, because my right hon. Friend dealt with it more than capably. Let me say simply that it goes into more detail—rightly, in my view—in an attempt to ensure that the mechanisms provided for allow no possibility of forfeiture procedures "slipping through", or being carried out inappropriately. The forfeited animals must be housed in compliance with the regulations, proper records must be kept, and—this is particularly important—
The appropriate authority shall have the right to recover from the person against whom the order was made the full costs of keeping the forfeited animals from the time the order was made until their final destruction or disposal.
As was said earlier, that may not always be possible. As we have freely admitted, in some circumstances, the persons involved may well be in, or near to, a state of insolvency or bankruptcy, given the nature of the business involved. Nevertheless, I think it right for us to try to protect the taxpayer in this way. Notwithstanding the criticisms made earlier by the hon. Member for Garston, I try to be consistent in one regard: I try to keep my eye on the taxpayer, especially when the taxpayer's pocket is being raided by small groups with an interest in extracting money from him.
Finally—this, too, is important—new clause 2 states:

The appropriate authority shall retain the forfeited animals until there is no further possibility of the order being set aside and shall then submit to the court
a report concerning the disposal, or destruction, of the animals and the costs involved. I consider that an appropriate way of ensuring that the process is completed in a way that is acceptable to all of us who have the animals' welfare at heart.
That brings us rather neatly to the hon. Lady's amendments. In her typically reasonable way, she admitted that she had made an unbalanced judgment. Her Bill had started out on the basis of one presumption; she had reflected subsequently, and come to a different conclusion. That illustrates a number of things. It illustrates the eminent reasonableness of the hon. Lady; it reflects her legal expertise and experience; and it demonstrates that, in a Bill such as this—contrary to what the Minister said—it is possible and, indeed, proper for not just the promoter but others to reflect during each stage, from Second Reading through Committee to Report, and then present amendments.

Mr. Morley: I want to reiterate—the right hon. Gentleman can check what I said on the record—that I have made it clear that it is right and proper, as part of the democratic process, that such Bills should be examined properly, that questions should be asked and, of course, that people should receive answers. However, I repeat: much of that matter has been dealt with in Committee. I have already given assurances in relation to the points that he is repeating. The conclusion that people outside the House will draw is that some people are motivated by individual arrogance, rather than the proper democratic process of such Bills going through all their stages.

Mr. Forth: The Minister must be talking about his colleagues because it is his colleagues on the Front Bench who have obstructed more than 20 private Member's Bills in the current Session. I will send the Minister, so that he knows what is going on, a Hansard showing one of his colleagues speaking at enormous length on a measure two or three weeks ago, which regrettably knocked out a worthy measure towards the end of the day. He is not here every Friday. Some of us are, as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will verify. The Minister has not managed to make it on many Fridays, so he is not too familiar with the process.

Mr. Maclean: On the point about the Minister not being here every Friday, one perhaps would not expect it. Will the Minister give a guarantee that he will sit here for five minutes after 2.30 pm today and watch his Front-Bench team kill a dozen Bills on today's Order Paper without any debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Now that that point has been made, we can get back to the new clause.

Mr. Forth: I was praising the hon. Member for Garston when I was rudely interrupted by the Minister. My praise is not yet finished, she will be embarrassed to hear. She has tabled amendments; I accept them as that. Therefore, I find it that much more difficult to judge one way or the other about them. The problem is that what they say is that, before the legal process is completely exhausted, the court may intervene and do something terribly final and irreversible, even though there may be further processes to be undergone.
In a sense, I should like to defer to the hon. Lady's legal knowledge, judgment and experience on the matter, but it leaves me with an uneasy feeling. I am not a lawyer. Therefore, I do not know how much precedent there is for

such a thing, but I would have thought that, if one were going to err one way or the other in a matter such as we have in amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3, probably we should err on the other side: the position where she was originally. That would be my preference, but, again, I am giving an unbalanced view because I can see the arguments both ways.
What makes me uneasy is the thought that, perhaps unnecessarily, the court may feel obliged to intervene, and to make a final disposition, before the whole process has been completed. Under the heading of compensation in clause 5, we will come—I do not want to anticipate it—to the role of the Lands Tribunal and the alternatives. I mention that in this context only because I think that even the hon. Member for Garston would accept that the legal process can be lengthy and often seem interminable. In that regard, I can understand her desire perhaps to intervene, to interpose and so on, but, in this case, the balance of judgment should be the other way. That is why I am reluctantly not prepared to accept amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3, but I accept that it is a difficult one to judge.
There we have it. We have a complicated series of measures. I do not know whether this is the stage at which you want an indication of those measures on which we would wish to divide the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that we should like to divide on one or two of the different amendments in the group. We will be guided by you as to when that indication should be given. I simply flag up at this stage that we think that it is appropriate for there to be a couple Divisions on key elements of the Bill, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border will give that indication when you tell us that it is appropriate.
There are important matters here. I hope that the House will accept that we have tried to improve the Bill within the context of today's debate and the Report stage. I hope, in that regard, that we will be able to make a success of it, to strengthen the Bill and to move on.

Mr. Maclean: We have had an excellent debate, which is sensibly coming to a conclusion, on a large group of new clauses and amendments, with some important points of principle in it. I have two or three minutes of remarks to make; that information may spare hon. Members from taking precipitate action to close the debate.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). I made in all sincerity a jibe about lawyers. I meant it, but I did not know that she was a lawyer. I had not done my homework and checked her background. It was my jibe about getting out of the legal profession before being totally corrupted. I did not aim it at the hon. Lady. She has been very kind and courteous.
I have heard what the hon. Member for Garston and the Minister have said. I am not convinced that their arguments are correct. The Minister has said, "We had some suggestions in Committee that we will want to work on, and deal with, in another place." Without straying into generalities, let me say that I find it unconvincing that the Government are now relying on the hon. Lady, able though she is, to deal with, and to put through, a measure
that was in the Labour party manifesto—not a key election pledge, but an important pledge. The Government cannot come before the House today with amendments to make the Bill leave this place as perfect as it can be. We are asked to accept assurances roughly along the lines, "I know that there are faults and the Bill is not quite right, but we will sort it out in the House of Lords."

Mr. Morley: I repeat: the proposal for amending the Bill in the House of Lords is not because the Government consider the Bill is faulty; we consider it perfectly adequate. The amendments are to reflect the discussions and negotiations that have properly taken place with interest groups to try to take into account their concerns, broadening the scope of compensation in particular, but dealing with one or two other things. It does not have to be done, but the discussions are in relation to what they feel would be more appropriate in terms of their circumstances.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the Minister for making that point, but I do not accept that it is a valid distinction. He says that it does not have to be done, but that the Government are going to take into account the concerns of those groups. He will amend the Bill in the House of Lords to deal with financial matters and compensation, matters that are usually primarily of concern to the House of Commons.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. These points are being mentioned in passing, but we must keep to the new clause, which the right hon. Gentleman tabled.

Mr. Maclean: I am sorry. We can deal with compensation later. Nevertheless, there are measures that the Minister is refusing to accept: new clauses 2 and 3, or some of the other amendments. There may be things to be done in another place. If the measure does not succeed today, the Minister seems to be saying that that is the end of it. It is not.
We are months away from a new Session. I do not think that the Ministerial Committee on Legislation has yet approved the legislation for next Session. The Minister can conclude his negotiations and his consultations, take on board the improvements that we have suggested, if he will not vote for them now, and then introduce better legislation to deal with the matter.
I say to the Minister—if I can do so without straying—that we passed in the House last week the new, improved puppy dogs Bill—the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill—which I blocked last year. We now have an infinitely better Bill. We managed to do it this time.
I say to the Minister in relation to the new clauses: please accept them today, or accept the spirit of them. If he cannot accommodate them today, so that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are not satisfied, and the Bill does not complete all its stages today, he can come back with Government legislation next year, with all the discussions completed.
I am sorry that the Government and the hon. Member for Garston will not accept the suggestions. I would not wish to waste the time of the House by voting on all the measures, but there are some alternatives. I hope that, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it will be possible

to vote on new clauses 2 and 3 and amendment No. 3. I hope that the Minister will accept my amendments, or we may have to vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 2, Noes 66.

Division No. 175]
[11.39 am


AYES



Tellers for the Ayes: 


Paterson, Owen
Mr. Eric Forth and


Trimble, Rt Hon David
Mr. David Maclean.




NOES


Austin, John
Leslie Christopher


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Linton Martin


Breed, Colin
Loughton, Tim


Buck, Ms Karen
Love, Andrew


Caton, Martin
McDonnell, John


Cawsey, Ian
Mclsaac, shona


Clelland, David
McNulty, Tony


Coaker, Vernon
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Coleman, lain
Morley, Elliot


Cousins, Jim
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Olner, Bill


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Dowd, Jim
Plaskitt, James


Drew, David
Pollard, Kerry


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Pond, Chris


Efford, Clive
Pound, Stephen


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Flint, Caroline
Primarolo, Dawn


Fyfe, Maria
Ryan, Ms Joan


Gale, Roger
Sedgemore, Brian


Galloway, George
Shipley, Ms Debra


Gerrard, Neil
Skinner, Dennis
 

Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Southworth, Ms Helen


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Swayne, Desmond


Grogan, John
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Hancock, Mike
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Timms, Stephen


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Hill, Keith
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Jamieson, David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)



Kelly, Ms Ruth
Tellers for the Noes:


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Angela Smith and


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Mrs. Linda Gilroy.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it permissible to divide on new clause 3, which is an alternative to new clause 2?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I shall not permit a vote on new clause 3.

Clause 1

OFFENCES RELATING TO FUR FARMING

Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 10, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 6, in clause 2, page 1, line 22, leave out subsection (2).

Mr. Forth: On the face of it, this is a narrow point, but it has important implications and deserves a pause for thought. Clause 1(2) states:
A person is guilty of an offence if he knowingly causes or permits another person to keep animals as mentioned in subsection (1).
Clause 2 contains similar wording. Difficulties could arise over the interpretation and definition of those words. How far might the provisions go, and who may, inadvertently or otherwise, be caught by them?
It may be extreme to argue that people who purchase a product, such as fur, could, given the widest possible interpretation, be covered by the Bill. It is certainly possible that those who sell items containing fur might be covered. But what about people who are aware of fur farming, yet fail to report it? I am fairly sure of the motivation behind the phrasing used.

Maria Eagle: Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman. The important words are "causes or permits". It is not enough that someone simply knows of fur farming. One would have to cause or permit it. The owner of the land involved or the business concerned would be covered. Living nearby and knowing of the existence of a fur farm would not be enough.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Lady is helpful, as ever. That gets neighbours off the hook, but does it help retailers? Is there a causal chain involving the commercial relationship between the consumer, the retailer, the wholesaler, the processor and anyone else involved? At what point in the chain does the Bill apply?

Maria Eagle: The right hon. Gentleman might remember that under contract law, the parties to the contract would be those doing the causing. No problem will arise over the chain of relationships from retailer back to fur farm.

Mr. Forth: Let me mention, at random, the tanner. He may well have a contractual relationship with the fur farmer, which would draw him into the Bill's ambit.

Mr. Paterson: It is an incredibly simple fact that London is the centre of the world fur trade; 60 per cent. of world fur is traded here. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) has referred to contracts, and London's fur traders have contracts all over the world for which they require animals to be kept exclusively for fur.

Mr. Forth: We may well wish to return to that point. My hon. Friend's knowledge of these matters is unsurpassed in the House and he may wish to elaborate on them. My own brief comments merely lay the ground.
I am trying to explore the dangers that might exist in the Bill. I am not as reassured as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) intends me to be, because those with a contractual arrangement may well be caught in the net.

Mr. Maclean: Surely my right hon. Friend can go further on the provision relating to causing, if not permitting. If a large fur dealer has a valuable market for the product and seeks someone to produce furs that he

can sell, is he causing someone to do so? He is certainly encouraging someone to be in the business of fur farming, but is he technically or legally causing someone to do so?

Mr. Forth: I suspect that the hon. Member for Garston would offer the contractual answer to that point.
Later today, we shall consider the different species involved, an important matter that has not yet been discussed. Take rabbits, for example. Let us suppose that a fashion house, a fur house or a tannery discovered that for some reason—fashion, perhaps—rabbits were much in demand. Let us suppose that farmers went into the business of producing rabbits.
There is some doubt over the balance of value in the rabbit between its meat for eating and its fur for wearing, and that is where the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) becomes important. Under the terms of the clause, at what stage could it be said that someone might be inducing the farmer, who is not at this stage a fur farmer? We will return to that matter, too, as some difficult and tricky related points have not yet been teased out.
Let us suppose that the farmer responded to the attractiveness of the proposition. How far would the person who had made the offer be implicated? There would be a contractual arrangement. I do not know whether that would define the matter satisfactorily one way or the other. The danger is that the net may end up going much wider than the hon. Member for Garston intended, although I can see why the provision was included in the Bill.

12 noon

Mr. Maclean: I apologise for the slightly late intervention, but I received a note from the French Ministry of Agriculture yesterday, which pointed out that the rabbit Orylag—the Rex rabbit—is found extensively in France because the fur is more valuable than the meat. The whole carcase is use—60 per cent. of the value is in the fur and 40 per cent. in the meat at the moment. Such farming is an alternative rural industry. The product is popular as farmers diversify. Sometimes the meat and sometimes the fur is more valuable. Therefore, there is a danger in the provision.

Mr. Forth: I hope that my right hon. Friend will share that note with me later, as the matter will become highly germane when we discuss the schedule of species. My right hon. Friend has made the problem even worse. He is talking about French and not merely British seduction. We are now into international territory. How could I possibly doubt that what he says is correct? I can see from here that he has a document in front of him and I bet that it is in French, so I may be prepared to give a loose translation to the House if the need arises, but not yet.
Now that we have flushed out the rabbits, there seems to be a distinct possibility that, given the value of rabbit pelts and the doubt that exists about the relative value of pelt versus meat—we know how much the French like their lapins—there is sufficient doubt about this part of the Bill for us to be worried. When the hon. Member for Garston replies to this short debate, which need not be too long as we have much more important matters to discuss—

Mr. Paterson: Does my right hon. Friend understand that there is a clear link if a fur trader in London gives an
order to another body, who may have had a fur farm in this country and who may have moved his production to Denmark, which is very likely to happen in one case? As the Bill stands, that person will be liable to a £20,000 fine. There is a clear causal link between the trader in London ordering so many thousand pelts and the farmer, who is not permitted to produce in England, but is doing so in Denmark. The contractual link is as clear as daylight.

Mr. Forth: All that this debate has proved is that the less I say on the subject the better. My hon. Friend knows infinitely more about it than I can ever hope to know. I am anxious to get on to some of the meatier aspects of the debate—I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border got that, as no one else did. This is an important matter, but I do not want to delay the House on it. I simply wanted to set the scene and to tantalise my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), as I think I have. I will leave it at that.
To be truthful, I want to hear what the hon. Member for Garston has to say on the subject. The Minister may be tempted to his feet, although he is in a slightly churlish mood. However, he may be tempted to join us, to bring some joy to the debate and to help us out. With that, I am happy to move the amendment.

Maria Eagle: I am happy to try to reassure the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about the permitting offence, if I may call it that. Both amendments would remove the permitting offences from the Bill. I am concerned that if those amendments are made, they will create anomalies that will, in effect, enable anyone who is fur farming in this country to structure his or her business to escape the provisions of the Bill.
As the Bill is drafted, the offence can be committed by a company or by a person. The person with the controlling interest in one of the businesses might, for example, cause or permit a member of his family to do the fur farming, which would be the only remaining offence if the amendment were accepted. That is certainly the structure of one or two existing businesses. Perhaps an owner of a business might employ someone to run the fur farm. If the amendments were agreed, the person who had been employed to run the farm could be prosecuted, but not the person who owned the business and was employing that person to do so. That would leave an unacceptable loophole.
The land and buildings on a farm might be not owned by the person operating the farm, but rented to him by an ex-fur farmer. If the Bill's aim is to ban fur farming, it is not appropriate to introduce loopholes that would allow it to continue as a result of not prosecuting people for the offence if they are not directly involved, but are causing or permitting it. The Bill is drafted to avoid easy loopholes. I know that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst disapproves of making such activity criminal, but if we are to have this legislation on the statute book, the last thing that we want is an easy loophole to enable people to flout the law.
I am not as concerned as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst about the extent to which the provision may catch others who have some link with

the fur business, such as shoppers, neighbours and retailers. That is because one must knowingly cause or permit another person or company to establish and run a fur farm in this country before one is caught by the provision. It will not catch people who wander into a shop and buy a fur coat, or those in the London markets who buy fur from various sources, because they are not knowingly causing or permitting someone to commit a criminal offence.
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not want the offences created by the Bill to extend beyond what is intended, but I do not believe that the Bill as currently drafted does that. If his amendments were accepted, they would create a massive loophole which would prevent the Bill's main purpose from being implemented. I resist his amendments.

Mr. Maclean: I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady said, and agreed with some of it. I am not convinced about "causes". I accept the explanation of "permits". The provision does not extend to anyone who buys a fur coat, although that is the end of the chain. The fact that people wander into shops in London to buy fur coats is the reason why farmers in Holland, Denmark and America will keep mink. They do it for the benefit of no one but the consumer. Even on the most far-fetched legal interpretation, the consumer who buys the product, and thereby causes the farming to take place, does not legally cause it. Even my meagre law training 30 years ago tells me that.
I am not so sure about the international fur trade, the big London market and people in this country legitimately involved in the fur trade. The problem is that London accounts for 60 per cent. of the world fur market. It is huge and there are no plans to ban it. The world is going to continue producing furs. It will remain legal and legitimate, although many do not like it, except for farmers in Scotland, England and Wales who breed animals to supply the legal trade.
We do not have to look at Denmark. The danger is that someone heavily involved in the business will look at Northern Ireland. Nothing is being farmed there, but if I was a fur farmer in this country, I would be tempted to take whatever compensation the Government offer and set up business there because it is not covered by the Bill.
A fur trader in this country might say to someone who is operating a business in Northern Ireland, "If you go into fur fanning, I can get you a contract for 50,000 pelts a year. I am involved in the business; I will buy your supplies, if you go into business in Northern Ireland." That point is not far fetched, because Ministries of Agriculture are encouraging farm diversification schemes. I think that in this country, MAFF used to encourage a scheme for farmed rabbit meat. I am not sure if there is a subsidy, but we certainly have a farmed rabbit industry. I remember having to deal with the problems of Chinese viral haemorrhagic disease or something like that. That industry exists to farm animals for meat.
I have received a note from the diversification and marketing department of the French Agriculture Ministry encouraging people to stock a certain breed of rabbit—the Rex Orylag. When that rabbit is sold normally, the meat is worth 40 per cent., but the fur is worth 60 per cent.—depending on the market at the time. Currently, it could be perfectly legitimate for farmers to diversify into


rabbit farming in Northern Ireland, because some guy in this country could tell them that if they did so, he would take all the fur that they produced. That person would be encouraging someone else to produce fur, although he might not be causing the other person to do it.

Maria Eagle: Perhaps I did not express myself sufficiently clearly earlier. I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill applies to Great Britain. The primary offence is keeping mink, or any fur-bearing animal, solely or primarily for its fur, within the jurisdiction of Great Britain. In relation to the people for whom the right hon. Gentleman expresses concern, if the secondary offence were to come within the ambit of the Bill, those people would have knowingly to cause fur farming of some description to go on within Great Britain, otherwise no offence would be committed. We are not legislating for the rest of Europe; if the Bill proceeds, the House will legislate for Great Britain—not Northern Ireland. People would have knowingly to cause or permit an illegal activity to take place in Great Britain to fall under the ambit of the Bill. That deals with most of the points made by Conservative Members.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point, which deals with the example that I gave. However, let us suppose that someone is caught illegally fur farming in this country—for example, by breeding those Rex Orylag rabbits—but that person says, "I was doing it because I was encouraged by Mr. Bloggs in the fur trade; he said he would take all the rabbit pelts I could get. We can sell them times 50 per cent. for the meat." Someone could encourage another person to take up that trade in this country. The excuse might be that rabbit meat is more valuable at a particular time, so the rabbits are not being bred primarily for their fur—although, of course, the fur is sometimes worth 40 per cent. and sometimes 60 per cent. Is that person causing someone else to go into that business? One person is certainly encouraging the other, but perhaps not causing the other to do so. Perhaps the hon. Lady would respond to that in a moment.

Mr. Paterson: My right hon. Friend has touched on the most important point. There are completely separate markets for fur and for meat. The price of fur has collapsed during the past year because of the slowdown in Russia and the far east. As he suggests, it could easily happen that a perfectly respectable rabbit farmer, who is mainly geared up to producing meat, finds that he is producing fur illegally, if the price of fur shoots up. He is then liable for a £20,000 fine as the Bill stands.

Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point; I had not realised that background point.
I shall conclude my remarks in case my hon. Friends want to speak. This is a small exploratory amendment. I understand the danger of removing the subsection and do not want to create a lacuna in the Bill by doing so. However, I wanted to explore my concerns about causes. I understand that, if a farmer tried to hide behind a company business and then contracted it out to someone else, that would be defined as causing the second person to take up the business, if it was done knowingly. I do not think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) is correct in saying that employees would

be caught. If someone owns a business, but lets the employees run it, surely he would be caught. It would be not only the employees who were prosecuted, but the person running the business.
12.15 pm
Therefore, if we removed the subsection, a farmer who had built in complex, commercial constraints or clauses to put himself at arm's length from the business could claim to be exempt from the legislation by pretending that he had nothing to do with it, even though, in fact, he was causing it to be carried out. I agree that the word "causes" is necessary to catch such people. However, the hon. Lady is saying that, without the subsection, the legitimate owner would be able to get away, but his employees could be caught and prosecuted, whereas I thought that for reasons of vicarious liability, the owner could be caught if the employees were.
That brings me to the end of my comments on the subject of the word "causes". I am not entirely convinced by the arguments I have heard, but I shall hear what my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) has to say. Then, perhaps, we can conclude our debate on the amendment.

Mr. Paterson: I am rather concerned that the Minister has not answered the points about species that I made on Second Reading, but I shall return to that later.
On the question of fur and its value, it is necessary to understand the range of people who could be caught by the legislation as it stands. If the Bill is passed, it is likely that smaller producers will leave the business, but there is one clear case in which a fur farmer has a substantial business in this country and a substantial business in Denmark. It is likely that that fur farmer will keep his British business going as a company, although he will have to cease production in this country if he is to avoid a £20,000 fine. However, surely a clear link remains between his dealers in London, where 60 per cent. of the world trade in fur is carried out—we have been trading fur since the days of the Hudson's Bay Company—and his fur production in Denmark.

Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands my earlier remarks—perhaps I did not make them clear enough, so let me try again. For the second offence—that of "permitting"—to be committed, the fur farming has to have been carried out within Great Britain, which defines the limits of the Bill's scope. If the fur farmer in the hon. Gentleman's example moves his production abroad, it is clear that he will not be caught by the permitting offence.

Mr. Paterson: I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful intervention, but it only shows how pointless the Bill is, because mink will continue to be produced for fur in another country. Where in the Bill does it say that it is strictly limited to production in the UK?
To move on to the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), we have to recognise that London will continue to play host to the trade in fur produced on rabbit farms. As I have just explained, the markets for rabbit meat and rabbit fur move independently of each other and, although the price of rabbit fur is currently low because of problems in Russia


and the far east, the market could easily pick up. If it did, legitimate rabbit farmers with contracts in London would be swept into the scope of the Bill. That is not satisfactory.

Maria Eagle: That is not true.
Mr. Paterson: Would the hon. Lady care to explain why not?
Maria Eagle: I shall be happy to do so. The matter was dealt with on Second Reading. The offence is to farm animals
solely or primarily … for the value of their fur".
I made it clear on Second Reading that it is not my intention to catch people who produce fur as a secondary product, so a farmer who keeps rabbits primarily for their meat would not be caught by the Bill. The Bill covers only businesses of which fur is the primary product, so the hon. Gentleman need not worry quite so much. It will be for the courts and the prosecuting authorities to determine the primary purpose of the business, and they will consider that in a common-sense way.

Mr. Paterson: The hon. Lady is being naive. The rabbit farmer will want to add value to his rabbits; if the fashion for rabbit fur, and therefore the market for it, picks up, the main value of the rabbit will be derived from its fur, not from its meat. The hon. Lady puts legitimate rabbit farmers in real jeopardy of coming under the scope of her Bill, because fur will be the main object of production in some years, and meat in others. The Bill has not been properly thought through.

Maria Eagle: It is not naive—the matter was thought about when the Bill was drafted, and that is why the word "primary" is present. It would be for the prosecuting authorities and the courts, which always deal with such issues in a common-sense way, to identify the primary purpose of the business. In mink farming, it is fairly clear that the primary purpose of the business is to collect the commercial value of the fur—I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees on that. I made it clear on Second Reading that I did not intend the Bill to catch rabbit farmers whose primary purpose is meat production. That is why the word "primary" is in the legislation. The Bill must be interpreted by the prosecuting authorities and by the courts. I hope that, by making it clear that I do not intend rabbit producers to come within the Bill's ambit, I have assisted the courts in that regard.

Mr. Paterson: It is a fundamental issue. It is clear that the hon. Lady does not understand that, when rabbit fur is in fashion and that market is strong—possibly for five years—it is likely that rabbit farmers will derive their main income from fur rather than from meat.
Moving to a completely different species, I visited the Falkland Islands in November. The farmers there dump sheep carcases on the beach where they are eaten by seals and sea lions. All the value is in the wool and there is no market for the meat. That could happen with rabbit farms.

Maria Eagle: The Bill does not extend to the Falkland Islands or to wool. However, in those circumstances, it would be perfectly clear to the prosecuting authorities what the primary purpose of the business was.

Mr. Paterson: It is most unsatisfactory to leave it to magistrates in Devon or in some remote part of the United

Kingdom to wing this. We cannot expect them to read this debate and say, "Ah, when the hon. Lady drafted the Bill, she never expected the fur market to pick up and become the overwhelming reason for breeding rabbits." We cannot legislate in that way.

Mr. Maclean: Surely the point is that, because the cost of fur fluctuates in cycles every one, two or three years, farmers who legitimately produce rabbits primarily for meat—believe it or not, there is a huge market in rabbit meat—may discover that, if there is a change in the world fur market and an increase in fur prices, fur is more profitable. However, they would be prosecuted under the Bill if they breed rabbits for their fur. That is what I am concerned about.

Mr. Paterson: That is exactly my point. It is not good enough to pass legislation in the House and to expect magistrates to interpret it in the spirit that the Bill's promoter intended.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, although it is not a large industry, rabbit farming is long established in this country. That is understood by those involved in rabbit farming and by the Ministry. Has a single rabbit farmer expressed concern to the hon. Gentleman about the Bill?

Mr. Paterson: No, they have not. At present, the primary function of rabbit farms is meat production. We cannot legislate in the hope that the circumstances will not change: the Bill must be clear and watertight. If the legislation passes unamended and magistrates interpret the Bill as it stands, a legitimate rabbit farmer who has raised rabbits for meat for many years but who turns to fur production when that market turns up may swing for a £20,000 fine. The Minister shakes his head. Under what circumstances would magistrates not impose the £20,000 fine? Will the Minister explain?

Mr. Morley: As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) has explained—I think ad nauseam—it would have to be demonstrated that the farm's primary purpose was the production of fur. It is irrelevant if, for the sake of argument, rabbit fur is worth more than the meat in a particular year—I am not sure whether that has ever happened—because the main consideration is whether the primary purpose of the business is fur rather than meat production. We have considered this issue very carefully, because the Bill does not seek to interfere with the sale of a by-product of meat production on rabbit farms.

Mr. Paterson: It is clear that the main intention of the Bill is to close the few mink farms remaining in this country. However, it could also encompass rabbit farms. If the value of the fur exceeds the value of the meat and that becomes the main purpose of the rabbit farm—

Mr. Morley: It has nothing to do with that.

Mr. Paterson: It is. If the Minister reads the Bill, he will find that clause 1 says:

"A person is guilty of an offence if he keeps animals solely or primarily … for slaughter … for the value of their fur".

Mr. Morley: That must be the primary purpose. [Interruption.]

Mr. Paterson: I am delighted to have a sedentary intervention from the promoter of the Bill and from the Minister. Would one of them like to explain the provision?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point about rabbit production, and he is beginning to repeat himself.

Mr. Paterson: I agree that I am repeating myself, but that is because I am not receiving a satisfactory answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not receiving a satisfactory answer. I have no powers over that, but I have powers to ensure that hon. Members do not keep repeating themselves. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could move on.

Mr. Paterson: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall move on to another concern.
I repeat the declaration of interest that I made on Second Reading. Although there is no direct link between the tanning industry and the fur industry, some materials do cross over under certain tariff headings. I spent my career in the leather industry before I came to the House, and I was the president of the European Tanners Confederation for a couple of years; I am still vice-president.
The Bill gives no cast-iron definition of "fur".

Maria Eagle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we not considering amendments Nos. 5 and 6, or have I missed us moving on to the next group?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must address amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

Mr. Paterson: Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Unless those amendments are made, anyone who buys from a producer whose primary product is fur can be caught out. No one has looked into the European Union tariff definitions of fur. Chapter 43 of those definitions was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities, L292, volume 41, on 30 October 1998. It states:
Throughout the nomenclature references to 'furskins', other than to raw furskins of heading No 4301, apply to hides or skins of all animals which have been tanned or dressed with the hair or wool on.
That is a broad definition. Heading 4301 applies to raw fur skins,
"including heads, tails, paws and other pieces or cuttings, suitable for furriers' use … other than raw hides and skins of heading No 4101, 4102 or 4103".
If amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are not made, anyone who places an order for those products, from animals that are raised exclusively for fur, will caught by the provisions of the Bill.

Maria Eagle: Only if the animals are farmed in this country. How many times must I say that to the hon. Gentleman before he hears me?

Mr. Paterson: Those animals are farmed in this country, as the hon. Lady will find out if she allows me

to refer to the lists of the animals concerned. I am most surprised that the hon. Lady did not take up this issue because I referred to it on Second Reading. She could have read the list and found that many of those animals could be produced in this country.
There is a fairly obscure demand by architects for cattle hides with hair on; they are known as hair-on hides.

Mr. Morley: The Bill relates to fur. There are no furry cattle.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I ask the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) what this has to do with amendment No. 5? He has lost me.

Mr. Paterson: It has everything to do with amendment No. 5. If a party places an order for hair-on hides, they will be encompassed by the Bill if that animal is produced only for the hide. I mentioned on Second Reading a Belted Galloway, which has a white stripe on a black background and looks marvellous on a wall. If that animal is produced specifically for its hide, the producer will be affected by the Bill. That is true of the producers of other species, such as certain rare types of sheep, including Carakul and Broadtail. They all count as fur under the European Union definitions. Therefore, if those sheep or cattle are produced, in this country, only for the fur—and it is defined as fur by the European Union—they are caught out. This is a desperately serious point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It may be a serious point, but I have heard the hon. Gentleman make that point before. As he has made the point, perhaps he will allow the promoter of the Bill to allay his fears or otherwise. That might be best.

Mr. Paterson: If the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) would allay my fears, I should be grateful.
Let us suppose that someone breeds an Astrakhan, Carakul, Persian, Indian, Chinese, Mongolian or Tibetan lamb, all of which could be bred in this country, where the meat is of no value and the fur is of exceedingly high value. Under heading 4302 13 00, the breeder of those very specialised rare sheep would be caught up by the Bill because, according to the European Union definition, it is fur.

Maria Eagle: The Bill is not about sheep, it is not about wool, it is not about cows, it is not about hide; it is about keeping animals where the primary or sole purpose is the value of their fur. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not understood it. Perhaps he should go and read the Bill.

Mr. Morley: Perhaps he does not know what sheep are like.

Mr. Paterson: These are rather cheap sedentary interventions.
I am making a desperately serious point. People in a totally separate trade may be swept up by the provisions of the Bill. [Interruption.] I welcome you to your position, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me explain what you might have missed. As the Bill stands, a breeder of rare sheep—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Perhaps I should tell the hon. Gentleman that the Chair has a collective memory.

Mr. Paterson: Okay. Right. I shall make my comments very brief because I know that the hon. Member for Garston is looking at the clock.
As the Bill stands, a person will be fined £20,000 in a magistrates court if he has caused another person to raise an animal for its fur. We all agree with that.

Maria Eagle: In GB.

Mr. Paterson: In GB—anywhere in the United Kingdom.
There are certain breeds of sheep—I shall stick to sheep—which I named just now, whose wool, as some people call it, is defined as fur by the European Communities definition. Therefore those farmers will be committing an offence. I shall keep it simple for the Minister's sake. The value of the fur is the reason for raising the sheep, because if one wants to raise sheep for meat—

Mr. Morley: Fur?

Mr. Paterson: Yes. It is defined as fur in the European Union Official Journal of the European Communities. I have read out the list; the Minister would have heard if he had bothered to listen. It is a fundamental point. It will sweep in many innocent people who are not involved in mink farming—which, as I understand it, is the narrow focus of the Bill. That is why it is essential that the Bill is amended—either on species grounds or as proposed by amendments Nos. 5 and 6. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the Minister is going to consult his advisers, who might be better informed than he is.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are only right hon. and hon. Members present in the Chamber. There should be no other references.

Mr. Paterson: I am glad to see that the Minister is taking inspiration from the wooden panelling near his left ear.
However, I am making a very serious point. It is quite possible to raise, for the value of their fur in this country, animals that are not mink, that are not kept in cages, but are kept in farms. Some them may be goats; some may be sheep. It is most important that the Minister addresses that point. I am disappointed that he did not do so after Second Reading.

Mr. Forth: It falls to me to say a few words to conclude this constructive and fascinating little debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), who has drawn attention to

some important matters. I suspect that we will have an opportunity to return to some of the important themes that he raised when we debate a later group of amendments.

Mr. Morley: To try to avoid the risk of returning to any of those themes, I want to reassure the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) that, in relation to a very short discussion with the experts in the field of whether a sheep can be defined as furry, MAFF is quite content with the fact that we shall not have any problems in relation to the definition of fleeces. We are quite capable of telling fur from fleece, and a sheep from a fur animal, even if the hon. Member for North Shropshire is not.

Mr. Forth: In the context of that helpful comment, I will not get into elbows under any circumstances. We will probably return to this theme later in a rabbit sense, in which it may be much more relevant.

Mr. Maclean: Although MAFF, the Minister and those of us in this House may be able to tell the difference between a sheep and other animals that obviously have fur, the European Union has lumped them together in definitional terms, just as carrots have been reclassified as fruit and other things have been given weird classifications by the EC. That is the danger that my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) was talking about.

Mr. Forth: Indeed. Later we may want to explore the relationship between the Bill's effect in Great Britain—the UK will come in when we talk about grouping with Northern Ireland—and in Europe. We will then see who the real Europeans are. I suspect that we will see a fascinating juxtaposition, as we hear some uncharacteristic European noises from the Opposition Benches and some narrow British noises from the Government Benches. I hope that Labour Members will mind their words carefully, because they know what the Prime Minister said yesterday and what he thinks about these matters.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) because, typically and characteristically, she answered the points that I made thoughtfully. I was persuaded by her argument that, if our amendments were passed, they would cause unnecessary loopholes in the Bill. I would never want to be party to weakening the Bill in that way. Our last debate was about precisely the opposite, as is the next group of amendments.
For all those reasons, and, because I am anxious to save time and press on, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 17, leave out '£.20,000' and insert
'level 5 on the standard scale or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or both.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in page 1, line 17, leave out '£20,000' and insert
'level 5 on the standard scale'.

Mr. Maclean: The first amendment would give courts the option of imposing the standard level 5 fine and the


second would give them the option of the standard level 5 fine plus a period of imprisonment. One of the amendments, by necessity, would lower the maximum fine from £20,000 to £5,000, which is the highest fine that can be imposed on level 5 of the standard scale. The second amendment would give courts the option of imposing a custodial sentence in addition to, or instead of, a fine.
When I compared the Bill with other legislation with which I have been involved, I concluded that it is unusual for a specific sum to be included in legislation. More commonly, fines are prescribed with regard to levels on the standard scale. That avoids the need for changes to primary legislation when the scale is revised and saves the Government going through every piece of legislation raising the penalty from, say, £5,000 to £10,000. They bring in a general Criminal Justice Bill and simply raise the level of fines, which applies to thousands of Acts of Parliament in which the standard scale is imposed. It is therefore convenient to have a fine on the standard scale.
The other point concerns the level of the fine. The sum of £20,000 is fairly hefty and is usually imposed for corporate offences as opposed to those committed by individuals. The exception is gross environmental offences, for which huge fines of £50,000 are imposed. In special cases where one is guilty of allowing leakages from an oil tanker, one can get done for millions, and rightly so. Only in rare circumstances, however, and usually in respect of companies, are fines of that nature made, and fine-only punishment, as opposed to a court-ordered fine and a term of imprisonment, is normally available for such offences. Most fur farmers are individuals, not corporate entities, although there may be sole traders or partnerships. In those circumstances, the £20,000 penalty seems disproportionate and unsuitable.
Last week, we sent to the other place the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill, and its maximum penalty is three months' imprisonment and a fine of up to £2,500. Everyone agreed that that is sensible for such commercial activity—a lot of money is to be made by breeding and selling dogs, and more is to be made from mink farming.

Maria Eagle: I am sorry to make a slightly delayed intervention on the right hon. Gentleman's point about corporate identity, but the fur farmer who was recently found guilty of 15 counts of cruelty was prosecuted as a company—under his corporate identity rather than as an individual—so it is not unknown for existing businesses to have corporate identities. Perhaps a higher fine is appropriate.

Mr. Maclean: I hear what the hon. Lady says about that case. I do not know whether all 13 fur farms are corporate bodies; I suspect not, because that would be most unusual in any aspect of farming.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: I believe that the case to which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) refers involves a constituent of mine, who was recently fined £5,000, albeit his costs took the total to about £20,000.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. It is always a source of grief to me that the costs of fighting cases are always greater than the

penalties imposed. I hope that the Treasury, rather than the prosecution and defence lawyers, will benefit from receiving the proceeds of that fine. I am not getting at the hon. Lady, but individual examples perhaps make bad law and I suspect that the majority of farmers are not corporate bodies.
This point had not occurred to me before: it should be possible for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the SVS, when investigating, to pin many offences, over a continuing period, on someone who has been convicted of a cruelty offence. Would keeping animals improperly be one offence? Could charges be made in respect of every single animal and over a long period? I am not sure whether such a provision applies in the Bill.
For example, would one offence have been committed by someone continuing to run a mink farm with 100 mink illegally for 100 days, or would offences have been committed in respect of all the mink over those 100 days? I will happily take advice on that from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). If a separate offence applies to each animal kept, and not merely one offence of being an illegal mink farmer is committed, the scale of fines could mount up.
I have little else to say, except that, on the one hand, the £20,000 penalty might be on the steep side, but, on the other, if this offence deserves a £20,000 penalty, why does not the Bill provide for a term of imprisonment? A term of imprisonment was provided for by the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Bill, and six months' imprisonment usually applies to level 5 fines on the standard scale. In those circumstances, a term of imprisonment would be perfectly satisfactory and ought to be included as an option for someone who breaks the law by continuing to run, or by starting, an illegal operation after the Bill comes into effect.
This is surely a matter of trusting the courts. If they have the power to impose a penalty and slap on a fine up to level 5 on the standard scale, they should also be able to impose any period of imprisonment.
12.45 pm
As my hon. Friends have said, some of these people may be men of straw and may not have much substance behind them. A period of imprisonment may be a greater deterrent than a fine that may not be paid. They may have so arranged their businesses that they are men of straw and have little assets.
I am happy for the hon. Lady to say that she wants a high penalty and will not accept a level 5 fine, but if she believes high penalties are essential, periods of imprisonments must also be essential. It is illogical to go for a high financial penalty that offenders may not pay, instead of having the deterrent of imprisonment.
There are obviously alternatives, and they cannot all be accepted. I seriously urge the hon. Lady and the Minister to accept the amendment that would impose a period of imprisonment.

Maria Eagle: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making these amendments perfectly clear. We have not always had clarity from Conservative Members this morning, but he has made his points clear and I shall do my best to answer them.
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right that it is unusual for a fine to be specified in primary legislation, as it is in the Bill. I believe that a fine is the appropriate sanction. If the Bill were to be enacted, the law breaking would be for economic gain, so it seems highly appropriate to deter it by imposing a high level of fine.
Amendment No. 7 would impose a level 5 fine, which is £5,000 as the right hon. Gentleman explained. I believe that level 5 is not sufficiently high. A fur farmer could make a large economic gain by acting unlawfully, so a £5,000 fine may not be a sufficient deterrent to prevent him from continuing his unlawful business. That is why I thought that the fine should be at a higher level.
The amount of the fine is specified in the Bill so that it acts as a clear and obvious deterrent. The fine is clear from looking at the Bill. I know that that is unusual, but one would not anticipate the small businesses that the Bill makes unlawful to continue in great numbers, and one would not expect many people to be prosecuted for such an offence if the Bill does its job properly once it is enacted and once the industry is closed down.
It is important to include in the Bill the date on which the industry becomes unlawful and the level of fine. That is why I took the unusual step of specifying the amount of the fine as £20,000, rather than using one of the levels in the summary jurisdiction of the magistrates court.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether running a fur farm would count as one offence or whether a person would be guilty of separate offences. Each animal kept could constitute a separate offence, but given the way in which prosecutors work, it would be highly unusual for them to charge every offence. If a fur farm were operating with 100 mink, it would be highly unusual for prosecutors to charge 100 offences, although, technically, they would be separate offences. Normally, specimen charges are laid. For example, in the cruelty case that we referred to earlier, 15 specimen charges were made, although there were many more breaches than that. The prosecution went ahead on that basis, and the fur farmer was found guilty and fined. I would expect that approach to be taken.

Mr. Maclean: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She is wonderfully courteous.
If specimen charges could be laid, there would be no difficulty imposing a £5,000 maximum fine on 10 specimen charges if there were more than 10 mink. That would tot up to more than £20,000 and imprisonment.

Maria Eagle: That would certainly be an alternative way of dealing with the issue. When I was considering the drafting of the Bill, that was a possible solution, but I do not think that it is preferable to the one in the Bill. I thought that it was important to make the penalty clear in primary legislation. That is why I specified the figure of £20,000: I wanted the fine to be on a higher scale than the present level 5.
The right hon. Gentleman has said during earlier stages in the Bill's passage that the provision is too inflexible and, given that there might be a period of rapid inflation, the fine might end up looking rather small and primary legislation might be required to change it. I consider that unlikely, but in any event a Criminal Justice Bill—we deal with many of those, and they often amend other legislation—could increase the fine.
I also do not believe that there are a vast number of people who would wish to establish illegal businesses. Of course the sanctions must be there, but I do not expect that they will have to be used extensively.
I accept that the amendments represent an alternative way of dealing with this issue, but, having considered such proposals at the time when the Bill was drafted, I decided against them, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will respect my judgment.
As for imprisonment, the magistrates courts provide for six months, but I felt that, as these are primarily economic offences, they should be dealt with in that context. The right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten momentarily that the Bill provides for another method of punishment, namely forfeiture, which would involve not just a fine but the loss of an economic asset. Imprisonment on top of that would surely be draconian.

Mr. Maclean: A £5,000 maximum fine plus forfeiture would exceed £20,000. The forfeiture would constitute the lower level of the economic penalty that 1 propose; imprisonment would be the other penalty.

Maria Eagle: The right hon. Gentleman is right. If there are two lawyers in a room, they will come up with two different ways of doing things.
I hope that it reassures the right hon. Gentleman to learn that I considered his approach, but—perhaps for reasons of style; I am a different sort of lawyer from him—decided against it. I hope that he will not press the amendment, although of course he is entitled to do so. I accept that his proposals are constructive, but I am not convinced that they represent a better way of doing things.

Mr. Forth: In a speech that was, as ever, courteous and considered, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) said—with total honesty and transparency—that this was yet another of those unbalanced things, and that, having considered all the options, she had finally plumped for the one in the Bill. We too considered the options, from our own perspective, and funnily enough—this theme has run through this morning's debate—we concluded that, if we had to have this Bill, we would have to ensure that it did what it set out to do. If, as some would say, we are dealing with grasping, unpleasant people doing very unpleasant things, I should have thought that we should err on the side of harshness when it comes to penalties.
I am slightly puzzled by the hon. Lady's insistence that, because she considers this to be an activity concerned with economic gain, the money side of the penalty is the more important side. What has happened to the issue of welfare? The Bill is supposed to include a welfare consideration somewhere. Surely, at best, it is concerned with the welfare of animals, although ever since Second Reading we have disagreed on the best way to approach that. My hon. Friends and I have made no secret of the fact that we would have preferred an approach more directly concerned with welfare; but that is now behind us.

Mr. Morley: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. There is a balance to be struck in looking at things such as imprisonment, but, on the point


about welfare, welfare legislation is in place and is separate from the penalty, which is in relation to breaking the terms of the prohibition.

Mr. Forth: I accept that, but if that welfare legislation were adequate and were being properly implemented, presumably, we would not have the problem with which the Bill seeks to deal, so there is a bit of a conundrum there.
The hon. Member for Garston said that some of the people would be wealthy and that, therefore, a large financial penalty would be appropriate. One can turn that argument on its head and say, if they were that wealthy, even £20,000 might not be sufficient to deter them, but I bet that six months in prison would not half concentrate their minds. Therefore, following her own logic, because some of these people may be well off as a result of their activities, we need the possibility of a term of imprisonment, rather than only the substantial fine that that the Bill imposes.
Let us look at the other end of the spectrum. The person may have virtually no money and therefore may not be able to pay the fine, whether it be £5,000 or £20,000. I would feel much happier if we had the alternative of the term of imprisonment available to us in the event of the fine not having an effect.
Therefore, we are left with a peculiar position. Whether the person is a very wealthy fur farmer, or someone who has been very unsuccessful and is merely making a living, the argument comes down heavily on the side of a term of imprisonment being available to the court. Time and again, I find myself in the odd, but pleasurable position of arguing for the Bill to be strengthened in an attempt to make it more effective. I am still at a loss to see why the hon. Member for Garston draws back from that.

Mr. Paterson: Considering the flaws that we recently flushed out on the matter of definition, I am most surprised by the turn that my right hon. Friend's argument is taking. He must now realise that many totally innocent people in a trade totally separate from the fur trade could be swept into this. The penalties are excessive in that regard.

Mr. Forth: I confess that that is a problem.

Mr. Paterson: It is a huge problem.

Mr. Forth: It is. We will examine the matter further in a few moments. I am trying to focus on penalties notwithstanding. Let us resolve the matter about sheep, rabbits, fur, wool, fleeces and arms and elbows later, and concentrate now on the merits of the clause, discuss what we think the proper penalties are and how effective they might be. Then we will go on, perhaps even under the next group of amendments, to talk about pelts, rabbits and all sorts of other fascinating things.
We are talking about what will be most effective in implementing the Bill. Our argument is simple. The hon. Member for Garston was generous enough to praise the clarity with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) had put the case. I cannot better it, but I want to reinforce our slight puzzlement that, in our efforts time and again to strengthen the Bill, we are being resisted. I would have

thought that the question of penalties is a relatively straightforward matter. It is one about which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I feel strongly.
I do not feel inclined—it will be for my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border to say because he moved the amendment—to accept what the hon. Lady says. I do not believe that £5,000 will be enough to deter a very wealthy farmer and that we should not make available to the courts a term of imprisonment. If that penalty was good enough to look after the welfare of puppy dogs last week, it is certainly good enough to look after the welfare of mink or any other fur-bearing species this week. I hope that our decision will be consistent with that taken last week and that the Bill will include a term of imprisonment.

1 pm

Mr. Paterson: Following the unsatisfactory answers that we received on the matter of definition, and that we may receive on further clauses, talk of fines of £20,000 and imprisonment is excessive. The people who will be caught up in future will be innocent. We established in earlier debate that there are very few fur farmers left in this country—11, I think, and they will almost certainly go.
Those who will get caught up by the legislation will be innocent parties in another trade—the rabbit fanner who switches his production to fur, and so on. It will be an appalling burden for magistrates courts to have to decide such cases. I am not a lawyer, and I apologise to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) for my earlier comment disparaging lawyers. I have always found my dealings with them rather expensive, but it is a fine profession and I am sure that she is an excellent example of it.
As I understand it—the hon. Lady may correct me—the decision will be taken in magistrates courts, without recourse to jury. The only people likely to be swept up will be those involved in the rearing of animals that are not clearly defined—people from entirely different trades. I find any discussion of imprisonment excessive, and fines of £20,000 are out of order for the mainly innocent people who will be swept up.
How would the hon. Lady answer to some sheep farmer or rabbit farmer who was taken for £20,000 on the decision of a magistrates court, where he could not be represented by a proper lawyer—possibly someone of her standing?

Mr. Maclean: It falls to me to conclude the debate on this group of amendments. I disagree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). I know that perhaps only 20 of my colleagues agree with my general approach to the Bill. There is contention about the subject.
Some of us may take the view that the Bill is wrong in principle, or misguided, or that it should be approached by another route. However, if the measure goes through Parliament—the Commons and the other place—it will be become an Act of Parliament prohibiting an activity. The fact that I thought initially that it was misguided does not change my belief that the laws of this House must not be disobeyed by anyone.
One day people may be innocent, legitimate fur farmers. If the Bill goes through and turns them into criminals if they continue in business, I believe that the full force of the law should bear upon them afterwards.

Mr. Swayne: Hang them.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend interjects from a sedentary position a suggestion that I consider too severe. There are quite a few people in this country whom I may have wished to see hanged, but people in the trade do not come into that category. My hon. Friend will not tempt me down that route.
If, after the Bill is enacted, people continue in an activity that has been made illegal by the House, irrespective of my views on the merits of making it illegal, the law must be obeyed. The financial penalty without the term of imprisonment is not as great a deterrent as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) suggests.
The marvellous thing about this debate is that it is a matter of judgment. There is no great fundamental principle at stake in this part of the Bill or these two amendments. The hon. Lady was courteous and kind enough to say that she had considered our amendments carefully and in her judgment she had gone for one side.
I wish that the people who, my secretary tells me, have jammed my answering machine with death threats would listen to the debate that we have had this morning and hear the points of view expressed from all sides. They might then realise that although there might be some issues of principle between us, when the House of Commons debates matters such as fines, penalties and periods of imprisonment for those who break the law, there is not much between us.
I do not intend to push the amendment that lowers the £20,000 fine to level 5 on the standard scale, as that is not adequate. However, a period of imprisonment would act as a greater deterrent to some people than even the fine. Under my amendment, the fine would be level 5 on the standard scale and it would be possible for someone farming mink to be prosecuted for half a dozen offences. The hon. Lady said that multiple prosecution is possible, and in my experience, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is usually happy to bring several prosecutions, particularly in animal cruelty or welfare cases. The farmer could be prosecuted for farming 10, 20, 30 or 40 mink. Half a dozen specimen charges could be laid, with the level 5 fine of £5,000 applying to each. That means that a person could be fined £20,000, £30,000 or £35,000.
None the less, a term of imprisonment would act as a greater deterrent than just the fine. I would have level 5 on the standard scale, which could be applied to half a dozen cases, or 50, or 11 or 2,000. The fine could exceed the one proposed by the hon. Lady, and there would be forfeiture too. Imprisonment for up to six months would be a further deterrent.

Mr. Paterson: I am surprised that my right hon. Friend is taking the line also taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) in supporting these extremely severe penalties for people

whom I see as being innocent. Only complete idiots will carry on mink farming once the Bill becomes law, and the people swept up by it will be innocent people undertaking entirely separate activities. Surely, there should be a scale that reflects that fact.

Mr. Maclean: I disagree. Those people are innocent today, and they will remain innocent until 1 January 2001, or some other date if the hon. Member for Garston moves or agrees to an amendment. However, irrespective of the fact that what they are doing is legal today, if the House turns them into criminals, they must be punished properly. It does not matter that what they did was once not an offence. That point of principle should be accepted by every parliamentarian who believes in the rule of law.
I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend. The people to whom he refers are not criminals today, and nor is anyone involved in farming. But once this wrong-footed Bill, which approaches a welfare problem from entirely the wrong angle, is passed, the sanctions must apply. People should not continue an illegal activity. That must be a criminal offence, and the penalties proposed by the hon. Lady could be toughened up. I want to add a period of imprisonment so that we may be consistent with what we did last week on puppy dogs. We applied a three-month term of imprisonment then, and my proposals on the Bill would set a higher financial penalty and a six-month imprisonment term.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 1, Noes 66.

Division No. 176]
[1.8 pm


AYES


Paterson, Owen
Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. David Maclean and



Mr. Eric Forth.




NOES


Austin, John
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Breed, Colin
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Buck, Ms Karen
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Casale, Roger
Leslie, Christopher


Caton, Martin
Linton, Martin


Cawsey, Ian
Livingstone, Ken


Clelland, David
Loughton, Tim


Coaker, Vernon
McDonnell, John


Colman, Tony
McIsaac, Shona


Cousins, Jim
McNulty, Tony


Cranston, Ross
Morley, Elliot


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Dowd, Jim
Olner, Bill


Drew, David
Plaskitt, James


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Pollard, Kerry


Efford, Clive
Pond, Chris


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Pound, Stephen


Flint, Caroline
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Fyfe, Maria
Primarolo, Dawn


Gale, Roger
Ryan, Ms Joan


Gapes, Mike
Shipley, Ms Debra


Gardiner, Barry
Skinner, Dennis


Gerrard, Neil
Soley, Clive


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Southworth, Ms Helen


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Swayne, Desmond


Hancock, Mike
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Timms, Stephen


Hill, Keith
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)






Vis, Dr Rudi
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


White, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Williams, Rt Hon Alan
Angela Smith and


(Swansea W)
Mrs. Linda Gilroy.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 17, at end insert—

'(5) In this Act, except where the context otherwise requires, any reference to "animals" shall be a reference to any of the species of animal specified in the Schedule to this Act.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new schedule 3—

'Species of Animals—


Common name
Species



Arctic Fox
alopex lagopus


Chinchilla
chinchilla chinchilla


Fitch
mustela putorius


Mink
mustela vison


Raccoon Dog
nyctereutes procyonoides


Rabbit
oryctolagus cuniculus'.

Mr. Forth: On some measurements, the amendment might be described as one of the more important—if not the most important—of the amendments that we are considering today. It raises some crucial questions as to the general and specific approaches being taken to the matter in the Bill. The Bill has been cast in the most general terms. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) has pointed out that she did that deliberately and, typically, after much thought. However, as we have seen from today's worthwhile deliberations, that general approach has already given rise to some potential difficulties. At this point, perhaps we can consider some of those problems in their proper context.
At present, the Bill states simply that all fur farming will be prohibited. That begs the important question why there should be an indiscriminate measure. It also begs questions as to the relevance of particular species. That matter is the substance of the amendment and the schedule to which it refers. We can obviously hold different views on the matter; for example, one could take the view taken in the Bill—that there should be a blanket provision prohibiting all fur farming, regardless of the species involved. However, that raises some pertinent questions if one assumes that the motivational force behind the measure is one of animal welfare—surely the crucial assumption.
If the measure is genuinely about the welfare of the animals, and if one considers the arguments about why it is legitimate to raise an animal to eat but not to wear, we are immediately in difficulty. Although many powerful arguments have been made about mink because it is the only species raised for its fur in this country, the question is whether—if we are concerned about banning the raising of mink on welfare grounds—that would allow the possibility of raising other species, if a way could be found to do so within the welfare provisions. That is the first question.
There is a related question in respect of rabbits; that interesting issue arose during the progress of the Bill on Second Reading and in Committee. Rabbits are listed in the schedule and that usefully brings them into the debate. My right hon. and hon. Friends have already pointed out

that the issue about rabbits—quite apart from the welfare considerations to which we might return shortly—is whether the preponderance of value in a rabbit, depending on the type and, crucially, the state of the market at the time, was in its fur or its meat.
The issue has arisen in the French context. We have verification from France, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) alluded. I will not bore the House by reading it out; I think that I should probably be out of order if I read it out in the original French. As I recall the Standing Orders, languages other than English are not permissible in the Chamber. That gives me some relief.

Mr. Stephen Pound: But the right hon. Gentleman is speaking in Scottish.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: That is not a language.

Mr. Forth: I am tempted to say—no, I shall not.
The point is that we have had verification, in French, from France, of that important point about rabbits. That in no way undermines the validity of the argument. I am prepared to believe some things in French—certainly this one. The verification relates to the question why, in the mind of the hon. Member for Garston, if it is acceptable and legitimate on animal welfare grounds to raise a rabbit to eat, it would not be legitimate to raise the same animal in the same circumstances if one were going to wear it. Surely, that goes to the heart of our debate on the amendment and the new schedule. I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to elaborate on that matter during the course of the debate.
From the start, I have never been clear about what those who support the Bill are trying to say. If they are trying to say that it is legitimate, on the grounds of animal welfare, to consider different species whose fur may be attractive or useful to different people and different cultures at different times and to make a judgment as to whether it is proper to raise those species for their fur, that approach would receive a great deal of support from Conservative Members—but that is not the approach that has been taken.

Mr. Hancock: If it will help the right hon. Gentleman, I should tell him that there is one hon. Member who holds that view and who would welcome his support. My view is that farming any animal for its skin should be banned and your support for that view will, I hope, persuade you to cut short your contribution so that we can get on—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's comments have nothing to do with me and he must not use the term "you" unless he is directly addressing the Chair.

Mr. Forth: What a typical modern Liberal approach—reach for the ban. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), a member of the Liberal Democrat party, wants to ban an activity because he does not like it.

Mr. Nicholls: In his leather shoes.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman is indeed wearing leather shoes.
On the other hand, the modern Conservative party is genuinely liberal: we respect other people's points of view and we do not reach for the legislative ban every time we disapprove of something. As I have already reminded the House, I opposed a Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), a man whom I respect greatly and regard as a friend. His Bill would have banned something because he personally disapproved of it, so I opposed that Bill, just as I oppose the Bill before the House now.
The amendment and the new schedule address the question of whether it would be more appropriate to add a schedule to the Bill that identified the different species to which a ban should relate than to impose a blanket ban—a question that has given rise to some difficulty. Such a provision would admit the possibility of making judgments on the grounds of welfare. I keep returning to that point: if we are genuinely concerned about welfare, the approach embodied in the amendment and the new schedule must be the proper one to adopt.
The new schedule, if accepted, would be amenable to alteration, albeit by primary legislation rather than by regulation. On balance, I think that that is the proper approach: my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border and I could have made it a matter for regulations, but we took the view that, given the seriousness of the matter, it was right to fix it at this stage by listing the species in a new schedule to the Bill, while admitting the possibility of returning to the issue from time to time, on grounds of welfare, because of the way in which fashion and technology change and the market moves. All the different species that we put in our schedule are relevant in the context of the species that are known to have been farmed for fur in the past.

Mr. Paterson: I find the list that my right hon. Friends have produced somewhat arbitrary. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House the criteria according to which he drew up the list of species in the new schedule?

Mr. Forth: Given that we failed to consult our expert hon. Friend, I can easily imagine why he finds the list defective and I regret that. When we drew up the list, we took a view that, at this stage and given the state of current knowledge, the species listed were probably those that would fail to meet the welfare considerations that we understood motivated those who drew up the Bill.
However, I admit here and now that our schedule may well be defective in respect of our friend the rabbit. The rabbit gives me, and probably my hon. Friends, considerable problems in respect of the Bill, for the important reason that we have not yet established clearly why it might be possible and acceptable to raise a rabbit in certain conditions if the rabbit is to be eaten—which happens more frequently in France than in this country, although rabbit is still a delicacy here—but it would not be acceptable to raise that same rabbit in the same conditions, not to eat it, but to wear it in form of fur.

Mr. Hancock: Quite right.

Mr. Forth: My Liberal friend is desperate to ban something, somehow. He came to the Chamber desperate to ban something—

Mr. Hancock: You.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman wants to ban me now, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is a typical Liberal approach. In this alleged bastion of free speech, a Liberal Democrat seeks to prevent me from speaking freely. That is a sad comment on the modern Liberal Democrat party. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South will have to explain that as best he can.

Mr. Pound: It may be appropriate for me to inform the right hon. Gentleman that many hon. Members are at one with the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) in that view.

Mr. Forth: The sad truth is that there are not many. I count five Labour Back-Bench Members and two Liberal Democrats in the Chamber. I am delighted to say that there are the same number of Conservatives as Labour Members, even though the Conservative parliamentary party, sadly, has fewer members than Labour. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) is stretching the truth when he refers to "many" Members. The Government's numbers have increased exponentially as another Labour Member has entered the Chamber. The massed ranks of six Labour Members of Parliament are keen to express their support for this measure.

Mr. Morley: Sixty-six voted.

Mr. Forth: It is true that 66 Labour Members out of 417 have taken the trouble to turn up to vote in both Divisions today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated sufficiently his numeracy skills. Perhaps he will return to the substance of his amendment.

Mr. Forth: I was enjoying that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I will move on.
We are talking about the relative merits of retaining the original wording of the Bill, which is a blanket provision. It does not allow for the possibility of raising animals in acceptable conditions for food or fur and offers no means of dealing with the difficult hybrid example of our friend the rabbit. We know from the experience of our French colleagues that it is possible that either rabbit fur or rabbit meat may be more valuable at any one time.
That causes us considerable difficulty in picking our way through the clauses of the Bill. I must admit, for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), that I cannot claim that my amendment is all inclusive or totally comprehensive. However, it gives us an opportunity to tease out the mysteries of the rabbit, if not the relative merits on welfare grounds of including or excluding from the schedule different species at different times and in different conditions so as to raise them for their fur. That is the important point at issue and the House deserves to know the full details from the Bill's promoter and, if I can tempt him to the Dispatch Box, from the Minister. Until we are satisfied about such matters, we cannot make much progress.
The House will probably be relieved to know that I do not propose to go into great detail about the habits of each species, the amount of space that they are allowed under the current regulations and so on. I suspect that some of my hon. Friends are itching to assist the House with those details. I seek simply to set the scene broadly in introducing the amendment.
The fact remains—it chimes in with the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire—that we have not settled this difficult point. It proves the extreme value of the various deliberate proceedings in the House of Commons. We examined the Bill in Committee and raised points that have still not been dealt with—

Mr. Paterson: They were ignored.

Mr. Forth: That is regrettable. We now have an opportunity to re-examine those matters on Report and to involve different people in our discussions. Not all hon. Members who are present were members of the Committee. I was not invited to sit on the Committee. An hon. Member asked earlier why my hon. Friends were not members of the Committee; I was not even asked, and that is, perhaps, why I take particular interest in the Report stage.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Back to the amendment, Mr. Forth.

Mr. Forth: I think that I have set the stage sufficiently to establish the philosophy behind the amendment, which raises important questions. I look forward to hearing what the Bill's promoter and the Minister have to say about it so that we can reach a judgment on it.

Maria Eagle: First, I reassure the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) that I am not one of those who wish to vote him into complete quietude, however amusing or tempting the idea may be at times. He is acting within the procedures of the House, and I have no complaints about him in that regard.
In speaking to the amendment and new schedule, the right hon. Gentleman has suggested an alternative provision to that in the Bill, but he and I differ in our opinions. He has said clearly that he is a libertarian and does not believe in prohibitions or bans. The Bill's long title says that it is a Bill to
Prohibit the keeping of animals
if the primary or sole purpose is to collect
the commercial value of their fur".
That is the principle behind the Bill, which was accepted on Second Reading, without a Division. The right hon. Gentleman was present on Second Reading when, if his principled opposition was that strong, he could have tested how strongly other Members felt about the Bill, but he chose not to do so.
I accept that the right hon. Gentleman's amendment and new schedule would be an alternative way of dealing with a ban. I accept also that he may have chosen the animals mentioned in new schedule 3 on the basis of animal welfare considerations, although rabbits do not fit that theory, and he may have chosen that animal for a different purpose. No doubt, we shall hear about that later.

Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Maria Eagle: I shall give way shortly, but I want first to set out my basic position.
The alternative suggested by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is not as effective a way of achieving the Bill's purpose, as set out in the long title, as the current wording. His amendment would create potential loopholes. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said, implementation of the Bill would always be dependent on which animals were listed in the schedule, which could be amended only by primary legislation. The inflexibility of having to legislate again was a reason why, earlier in our discussions, other amendments were tabled by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean).
I hope that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will accept that his new schedule could be viewed as somewhat inflexible, and contains omissions. For example, coypu is not included, although we have had a problem with coypu in this country in the past. Muskrat is not included, although that animal was the reason for the introduction of the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932. Polecats are included, I believe, because they are fitch—I may be wrong about that. Lynx, however, are farmed in the US, but they are not on the list, although it is conceivable that they could be brought over here and farmed here.
Perhaps the most obvious omission from the list is the red fox, which, until recently, was farmed in this country for its fur. That practice was completely unlicensed because a licence was not necessary under existing legislation. That illustrates why the approach that I adopted—a blanket prohibition if it can be proved that the sole or primary purpose is to collect "the commercial value" of the fur—is a better way of achieving the objective in the long title of the Bill.
Given that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst did not divide the House on Second Reading, I am not for a moment suggesting that he is trying to undermine the Bill's primary purpose, but I fear that that would be the effect of the amendments if they were accepted.

Mr. Paterson: I was going to ask the hon. Lady whether she would answer the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), as to why it is acceptable to her to keep a rabbit in a cage and kill it for meat but unacceptable to keep the same rabbit in the same cage for the same period and kill it for its skin. That seems to be the fundamental contradiction of the Bill, which I do not understand.

Maria Eagle: I am happy to answer that question, but I have answered it before at different stages, including during Second Reading, when I believe that the hon. Gentleman was present, so he might recall what I said.
My primary purpose in respect of the Bill has been to get rid of what I see as a cruel practice, where the thing that is produced is not necessary to life. Food is necessary to life. I accept that there are vegetarians among us, but I do not believe in compulsory vegetarianism. However, I do not consider that it is necessary, in any circumstances, for fur to be available for the use of
mankind, especially when the way in which it is obtained is demonstrably cruel and cannot be performed in accordance with present animal welfare standards.

Mr. Nicholls: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Maria Eagle: I was replying to an intervention. The hon. Member for North Shropshire is on his feet.

Mr. Nicholls: I thought that the hon. Lady had finished with that intervention and was being kind—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we are getting into some confusion. I was prepared to take Mr. Paterson' s intervention as an intervention, to which the hon. Lady has now replied and has resumed her seat. Mr. Owen Paterson.

Mr. Paterson: That was a most interesting comment. I believe that it shows that the basis of the Bill is flawed. We must try to make the Bill work, along the lines that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) has suggested, without sweeping in many innocent parties whom she clearly does not intend to sweep into its remit.
My right hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) have chosen to include in the new schedule a list of species. That seems a sensible idea. The problem is that the list is faulty. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will not mind if I criticise it sharply. The list is arbitrary and capricious, and it does not encompass many of the species that have been farmed in Europe in recent years, and which could easily be farmed again in this country.
The first animal on the list is commonly known as the arctic fox—Latin name, alopex lagopus. The hon. Member for Garston rightly said that the red fox—vulpes vulpes—was not mentioned. Surely that is a major omission, because the red fox has been farmed for centuries. If my two right hon. Friends wanted to include fox production, it is a most extraordinary lacuna not to have mentioned the red fox.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, who wrote the new schedule, has returned to the Chamber. Perhaps he will tell us why vulpes vulpes was missed off the list.

Mr. Maclean: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I had to leave the Chamber for a moment. I did not want the schedule to list every animal that should be included. I wanted, if I caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say why I included the animals in the list. I thought that I would try the Chair's patience if I had a list of 20 animals and then tried to justify the inclusion of each one. I picked the animals that are listed to give a sample of the schedule as a means of achieving a purpose. I admit that the schedule is not complete, and I can give examples of other animals that should be included.

Mr. Paterson: That is a most helpful intervention. It partly explains where my two right hon. Friends are coming from. I believe that their intentions are correct. I simply think that the mechanism is faulty.
The next animal on the list is the chinchilla—Latin name, chinchilla chinchilla. My right hon. Friends have missed out a grouping. For information, the chinchilla belongs to the order of rodents—rodentiae—which includes the porcupine, but the family of the chinchilla consists of two species, which should have been mentioned. There is the short-tailed chinchilla, chinchilla chinchilla; and the long-tailed chinchilla, chinchilla lanigera. The smaller, short-tailed chinchilla, the chinchilla chinchilla brevicaudata, and the larger short-tailed chinchilla, or king chinchilla, the chinchilla chinchilla chinchilla, are considered sub-species.

Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman seems to be making a case for supporting the Bill as it stands. The way in which it is worded means that those bureaucratic problems do not arise. Unlike some of his right hon. and hon. Friends, who have great skill in relation to wasting time, the hon. Gentleman has a great deal to learn, which includes not reading out long lists. I should have thought that he could have been a little more imaginative.

Mr. Paterson: I am most grateful to the Minister for advising me on how to advance my parliamentary career. I shall listen carefully to his interventions in future, but I shall take advice from my right hon. Friends who, as he rightly says, are very skilled in parliamentary ways.
I am making the simple point that my right hon. Friends have included in the list the name "chinchilla". I have rapidly given the Minister four or five other types of chinchilla that should have been included.

Mr. Forth: Can my hon. Friend help us—I know that he is an expert in these matters —by saying how attractive those different varieties are to the fur trade? Might there be a market for them, which would induce people to contemplate farming them?

Mr. Paterson: My discussions have mainly been with European fur traders, one of whom said that the British Government must be "in Disneyland". That is how the European fur traders consider our deliberations this morning. They think that the Bill is completely crazy. Independent scientists in Denmark and Holland see no welfare grounds whatever for the Bill, and the Europeans think that we are wasting our parliamentary time discussing it. It is as simple as that.
The list that my right hon. Friends have drawn up is potentially an effective way of removing the danger of sweeping innocents into the Bill. I am trying to illustrate the flaws in the list and show how it could be improved.
I find it amazing that, in her speech on the clause, the hon. Member for Garston showed that she did not know what a fitch was, yet here she is, in cahoots with her Front-Bench colleagues, grandly trying to sweep away a whole industry. For her information, a fitch is from the mustela putorius species and it is a polecat. Other polecats should have been on the list—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Labour Members must not make sedentary comments.

Mr. Paterson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Another type of (itch or polecat is the steppe polecat—the mustela putorius eversmanni. Then there is the ferret. The case of the ferret shows the nonsense of the Bill, because animals raised for fur are probably kept in much better conditions than many ferrets that are kept throughout the country for chasing rabbits. By the way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am a great admirer of the ferret from my knowledge of Saki, which I am sure you have heard of.
To continue with the list—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. While the hon. Gentleman is pausing to sort out his notes, it might be helpful if I reminded him that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) said in an intervention that the purpose of the amendment was to discuss the list as a means of dealing with regulation. It is not, therefore, an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to go into minute detail on every single type of species that should be on the list.

Mr. Paterson: I take that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall end, therefore, with the animals mentioned on the list, the last of which is the rabbit. We have already had some discussions this morning about the rabbit, but mentioning one latin species on the list is totally inadequate. The only one mentioned is oryctolagus cuniculus, although there are some 80 varieties of domestic rabbit and about 30 breeds of rabbit.

Mr. David Heath: The hon. Gentleman purports to be an expert on this matter. There is only one species of rabbit—oryctolagus cuniculus. The others are sub-species or varieties. If he does not know what he is talking about, will he kindly not bore the House any longer by purporting to do so?

Mr. Paterson: I am charmed that the hon. Gentleman should join our deliberations after all this time; we have not seen much of him this morning. The "Encyclopaedia Britannica" says that there are 30 breeds and 80 varieties of domestic rabbit.

Mr. Swayne: It is undoubtedly the case that Isaac was unable to distinguish between his son Esau, who was a hairy man, and Jacob, who—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is quite enough.

Mr. Paterson: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for ending the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
The point is simple: the list is inadequate, although it is a mechanism that could make the Bill work better. The critical point—I refer to my earlier comments—is that there is no definition of a fur-bearing animal in the Bill. I have been mocked by the Minister and the Bill's promoter for using the definition used by European customs, which is in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
There will be no flexibility in the penalties imposed on those who contravene the Bill, and no flexibility at all has been provided by my right hon. Friends the Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Penrith and The Border. I have a very real fear that, in a remote part of England,

magistrates will be forced to make decisions on the basis of a flawed Bill containing no definition of a fur-bearing animal.
I should have thought that it is logical to suggest that a magistrate would go to the Official Journal of the European Communities for a definition of a fur-bearing animal. Other things may get swept into that definition. As I said earlier—I will refer to only one example, because I do not want to stretch this point—tariff heading 4302 13 00 states:
Of lamb, the following: Astrakhan, Broadtail, Caracul, Persian and similar Iamb, Indian, Chinese, Mongolian or Tibetan lamb".
I cannot make it clearer than that. That is an official European definition of a fur-bearing animal. As the Bill stands, those animals could be raised for their fur, because its value would exceed the value of the meat. They could be killed exclusively for their natural covering—the keratinous material. Some people may call it wool; the European Union calls it fur.
Unlike the promoter of the Bill and my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, I do not have the benefit of a legal background.

Mr. Morley: May I, once again, reassure the hon. Gentleman that the EU uses a number of definitions? He is casting aspersions on the magistrates of Shropshire if he thinks that they cannot tell the difference between a sheep and a fur-bearing animal. That would be incredible. He ought to stick to the point and try to make some progress with it, bearing in mind that the Fur Breeders Association, the NFU and a great many interested people want the Bill to progress. They do not want him to waste time in this ludicrous way.

Mr. Paterson: I am not satisfied by that response. The fact stands that an animal could be raised for the value of its covering. The keratinous material, which the Minister calls wool—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair will not be satisfied if the hon. Gentleman repeats that point. We are concerned with the new schedule and whether certain animals should be included in it—that, and that alone.

Mr. Paterson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was discussing the list of animals in the new schedule tabled by my right hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border and for Bromley and Chislehurst, which I have already said is inadequate. It should also be made absolutely clear which bovine species are exempt. It would be possible to raise them in this country for the value of their fur.
One final item is also not clear—the question of slinks, which are young sheep that die in the womb or shortly after birth. It is possible that slinks could be caught up in the Bill's provisions unless the new schedule is improved.

Mr. Maclean: The amendment and the new schedule, and the concept and principle behind them, are important. I want to discuss some of the species in the new schedule and to deal with some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). I think that he is right in some areas, but, if I may say so, wrong in some others.
We have proposed this new schedule because we think that it is a better way in which to deal with the problem than the hon. Lady' s general catch-all provision in clause 1, which states:
A person is guilty of an offence if he keeps animals solely or primarily … for slaughter … for the value of their fur".
Arguments have been made about keeping animals solely or primarily for the value of their fur, and we believe that that terminology can inadvertently cover some other animals.
One of the best examples of that is the rabbit—not the common rabbit, oryctolagus cuniculus, but more specialised rabbits, such as the Rex rabbit or Orylag, about which I have had information from the French. There is also the Angora rabbit. I can do no better than to quote from the "Encyclopaedia Britannica", which says:
Rabbit fur, sometimes called lapin, is used in the fur industry and is also a primary source of fibre for the manufacture of felt. Rabbit flesh, which is delicately flavoured, is often eaten by man. About 30 breeds and almost 80 varieties of domestic rabbits are recognized … Among the better known breeds are the Angora rabbit, a long-haired rabbit kept mainly for its fur and meat, and the New Zealand rabbit, a breed kept for its meat and fur and also for show".
Like other rabbits it is kept for laboratory use. Thankfully, that is not the subject of today's discussion.
The Angora rabbit and the Orylag have fur as opposed to any other covering, and they could inadvertently be caught by the terminology in the Bill. It may be legitimate and sensible to farm those rabbits. There may be no welfare problems at all. If there are welfare problems in keeping rabbits in cages, I hope that the hon. Lady and the Government will pursue the 2 million school children who keep rabbits in cages. If we need the terminology in clause 1, or in my new schedule, to deal with the welfare problem of keeping furry animals in cages, the Bill should not stop at animals such as mink: it should, on moral and ethical grounds, cover rabbits kept as pets.
I shall not go further down that road, because that concept should be discussed on Third Reading. Clause 1 deals with what the hon. Lady sees as the evil of keeping fur-farmed animals in cages, where it is not appropriate to keep them. She believes that their natural habitat cannot be recreated and they cannot satisfy their natural inclinations in farmed conditions.
The best way in which to ensure that the hon. Lady outlaws only the practice that she wants to outlaw—mink may be the prime consideration, as that is the only species of animal that is farmed in this country for its fur, although others have been—is not to use the broad catch-all terminology of "fur", which may inadvertently catch other animals, but to adopt the approach that I have suggested in the new schedule. Amendment No. 9 states that
except where the context otherwise requires, any reference to 'animals' shall be a reference to any of the species of animal specified in the Schedule to this Act.
The Minister has been slightly grumpy this morning. He should take a lesson from his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) the promoter of the Bill. She has been courteous throughout our consideration of the Bill. All of us could learn a lesson from the hon. Lady's demeanour.
2.pm
Unless the strength of the Minister's Department has declined considerably in the last two years—which, admittedly, would not surprise me—I can vouch for the capability of the specialists to whom it has recourse to come up with a comprehensive catalogue of the species that need to be listed when the Department concludes that there is a possibility of their being farmed by British farmers, and that it would be impossible to meet essential welfare conditions if—in the opinion of the specialists and the Minister—they continued to be farmed. That would permit the farming of certain species in the case of which no harm to welfare would be involved. I assume that rabbits would be one of those species.
I do not know how many hundreds of thousands of farmed rabbits are being bred for their meat. The trade may have declined; I am not sure of the latest figures. In any event, although the Government may not be subsidising the trade, they carry out inspections and permit people to farm lots of furry rabbits for their meat, irrespective of the pet trade.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the vast majority of people, sensibly and practically, see a difference between farming animals for food and farming them for their fur?

Mr. Maclean: I am not sure what has led the hon. Gentleman to that conclusion. I have seen no opinion polls—in any event, they may not be the best way of judging opinion, as the results depend on what is asked—or any comprehensive studies that suggest that. However, if people were asked whether it was more important for animals to be kept for essential food purposes or for women to be able to wear furs around their necks, no doubt most of them would say that food was more important.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I have here a document bearing the signatures of some 7,000 people, including 40 secured by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). There is significant support for the Bill throughout the country.

Mr. Maclean: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman replies to the question, he should bear in mind that this is a Second Reading point. Let us return to the amendment.

Mr. Maclean: I am afraid that I cannot respond to either of the points that have been made, as they would lead me slightly astray.
Let me just say that my list does not contain 7,000 species. The Cumbria branch of the Women's Institute has secured 20,000 supporters, and I do not consider it very telling that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) has managed to secure only 7,000, given that each of our constituencies contains 70,000 people.
There are ways and means of securing what the hon. Member for Garston wants, and I feel that my new schedule represents a better approach than the catch-all banning of fur. That is a broad-brush approach that would catch some species accidentally.
Let me make another point, which I do not think strays from what was said by the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker). If it is wrong to keep furry animals in cages for non-food purposes, we should presumably consider banning pet animals altogether. Rabbits are kept in cages not for food purposes, but to give enjoyment to people who find them amusing as company. I know that rabbits and other pets can be kept in cages safely and well, and that there is no harm in that—although those who do not keep them well should be punished. But the Government are not trying to ban the keeping of thousands of rabbits in cages for food purposes—and I think that the food would be for animal consumption.

Mr. Morley: It is for human consumption.

Mr. Maclean: I thank the Minister.
I suggest that, if rabbits are currently being farmed in cages that are no doubt suitable and appropriate, providing the right conditions, they can also be farmed safely for fur. What is the moral difference? Certainly there cannot be a welfare difference. Angora rabbit must surely enjoy the same welfare conditions as an identical rabbit.

Maria Eagle: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall Second Reading, when I tried, as the promoter of the Bill, to make it plain that I did not wish to include rabbit?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Lady may not wish to include rabbits. The Bill does not include the ordinary common or garden rabbit, of which there are millions too many. It does not include pet rabbits because they are not usually farmed for their fur. However, if people get into the business of farming Angora rabbits solely for their fur, will they be covered by the Bill?

Maria Eagle: indicated assent.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Lady indicates that those people will be. If it is her view and that of the Government that Angora rabbits that are kept in cages will be banned because they are being farmed primarily for the value of their fur, will someone please tell me the moral, ethical and welfare difference between Angora rabbits in a cage that are bred for their fur, which is 60 per cent. of the profit, and other members of the family that have a different name and are of a slightly different style, which are being bred for their meat and whose fur is worth only 49 per cent. profit per rabbit? The animal with the slightly more expensive fur is banned and the other is not. I just do not understand that.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend has possibly identified a serious flaw in the Bill even at this stage. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) said a moment ago that she told us categorically on Second Reading that she did not intend or envisage that her Bill would affect rabbits. She has now indicated that her Bill could affect rabbits, so we have a contradictory position. It appears then, under my right hon. Friend's analysis, that the Bill could be capable of doing something that the hon. Lady ruled out categorically on Second Reading.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It has taken us some time in the debate to get to this point.
There is now a glaring inconsistency and a potential not loophole, but catch-all: the Bill can catch things inadvertently.

Maria Eagle: Just to clarify the point, I hope that I have not been inconsistent. The point that I have been trying to make is that I see a difference—I know that the right hon. Members for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) do not; perhaps they will accept my argument—between keeping animals in intensively farmed conditions for food, which is a necessary part of life, and for adornment, which is not necessary. I accept that the right hon. Gentlemen do not think that that is a sufficiently large difference to matter, but I do.

Mr. Maclean: I am grateful to the hon. Lady and I respect her view. She sees an ethical distinction between rabbits in a 2 ft sq cage that are reared for expensive titbits in restaurants and those other rabbits.
Rabbit is not a staple diet of the British population. The last time I had rabbit was downstairs in the Churchill Room of this building as an expensive starter. It is not an essential requirement of life. However, I do not see the distinction between keeping rabbits in a 2 ft sq, or 1.5 m sq cage—whatever the size is; I will not bore the House with the figures—merely so that we can have them as tasty nibbles in the Churchill Room of the House of Commons, and keeping other rabbits, identical in almost everything except their covering, in the same size of cages, fed and watered the same way to the same welfare standards. The latter would be illegal and liable to a £20,000 fine because we have determined that those rabbits are being kept purely for the adornment of women, or men. I see that, in the latest fashions, men are into fur as well. If the hon. Member for Garston takes that view, I can equally say that the bit of rabbit that people eat is not essential to our life style either, as we have ample food supplies of all other types available.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I have been overgenerous with the current exchange. May I now nudge the debate back to the question that is at the heart of the amendment: whether there should be a schedule?

Mr. Maclean: I apologise. I was slightly tempted by the intervention of the hon. Member for Garston. I shall not be tempted by her again to stray into those areas.
The point about having a schedule is that it will deal effectively with the gap that we have identified in the past few minutes. The hon. Lady sees no ethical or moral distinction, but goodness me, is there not possibly a legal problem? Let us forget about the ethics of the matter for a moment, and look at the legality. When it comes to interpretation of clause 1, the court will merely have to decide whether the animal is kept primarily for its fur.
Someone may be farming the Angora rabbit or the Rex Orylag rabbit, a rabbit that is farmed in France primarily for its fur, which presents a more difficult problem. The fur of the Rex Orylag rabbit is at present worth 60 per cent. of the value of the whole rabbit, and the meat is worth only 40 per cent. Anyone who tried to farm that breed in this country would be caught by the hon. Lady's provision because the animal is kept primarily for the value of its fur-the meat is a secondary consideration.
However, the New Zealand rabbit is kept primarily for its meat. Fur is a secondary consideration at present, because of its value. If someone gets legal advice, or asks the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he would be caught by the measure if he farmed the New Zealand rabbit or any other rabbit whose meat is more valuable than the fur, the Minister and his advisers would say—not that MAFF should be giving such advice —that the legal advice was, "No, probably not."
The primary purpose of farming the animal in that case is not for fur, but for meat, which is worth 55 per cent. The fur is worth less. Let us suppose that the person starts farming the rabbits. As we now know, fur trade prices vary considerably. The market in Russia has collapsed, so fur is down. If the value of the meat from the New Zealand rabbit collapses so that the fur is worth more than the meat, the fanner will have to sell his rabbits for fur for one or two years until the trade recovers. He will have to sell the output of the farm for different reasons. He is growing the rabbits for meat, the meat price collapses, the fur price increases and he gets more value for the fur.

Maria Eagle: I may be able to assist the right hon. Gentleman to a degree. For the prosecuting authority or the court, it would be a matter of evidence as to what the primary purpose was. He is right about that, but his argument assumes that that would be determined purely on the basis of the relative price of the fur or the meat. If the person concerned could show that he had been in the meat business for years, that might also be a consideration. It would not just be a matter of the value of the fur, as opposed to the value of the meat. Can the right hon. Gentleman not see that?

Mr. Maclean: Clause 1(1) of the hon. Lady's Bill refers to animals being kept
for slaughter … for the value of their fur, or … for breeding progeny for such slaughter.
Her Bill makes it clear that the primary purpose is the value of the fur. Let us assume that someone is farming rabbits, with Government endorsement, primarily for the value of the meat, because at that point the meat is worth more than the fur, who then hits a period of a couple of years when the meat price goes down, or China gets its act together and swamps us with more rabbit meat, as it was doing a few years ago, before viral haemorrhagic disease struck, and the meat price collapses. He finds for a couple of years that he is selling his rabbits for their fur. The fur is worth infinitely more.
The hon. Lady says that in such a case, it will be up to the court. Hopefully, the person might win his case, but he might not. We cannot have legislation that makes him a criminal one year because the price is up, but not the next year because the price goes down. The concept of my schedule removes that problem. I am happy to put the judgment on the Minister's officials if the House passes a law stating that we do not want animals kept for the value of their fur. The concept may be wrong, but the schedule allows more flexibility, sense and certainty.
I have given some examples in the schedule, and I could have included a lot more. I could justify putting each of them on the list because of the British climate and the ways in which they could be farmed. I am not an

expert, so if I tried to make a complete list, the Minister would be able to say, "Your schedule is rubbish. You have missed out two things—the red fox and something else." I took those examples because all the fur animals listed have been farmed somewhere in Europe, and some have been farmed in the United Kingdom until quite recently.
Currently, mink is the only animal farmed in the UK. Fox used to be farmed, but there are no fox farms at present. Fitch used to be farmed, but they are no longer, although they are farmed in Finland. I shall not go into the details of all the types of chinchilla, but I have offered one example in my schedule. No doubt MAFF experts could add others. Chinchilla are farmed in Germany and Denmark, and there have been attempts to farm them here. I do not know why they failed.
2.15 pm
Rabbit is a different—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Kettle of fish?"] My hon. Friends may have argued that some funny species of sheep have fur, or at least that Europe says they do, but I shall not try to argue that any rabbit has scales.
Rabbits are in a different category. In Spain and France, they are farmed both for meat and fur, and the value of the fur is sometimes greater. With the exception of rabbit, which I included in the schedule deliberately in order to make this point, all the species listed fall under the European convention on the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. The Council of Europe has produced recommendations on fur farmed animals under that convention, and they contain welfare rules for supervision, housing, management, breeding and slaughter of fur animals. New scientific evidence adopted by the Council of Europe is also enshrined in the recommendations.
Adopting the schedule would give the Government a chance to specify the species that they did not want farmed for fur. Rabbit is the best example before us today, but the Minister, advised by his experts or by English Nature, may decide that other species, of which I am unaware, should not be included in the schedule because they ought not to be banned as they can be farmed in conditions suitable to their welfare. The Minister has sole charge of those welfare conditions.
Two approaches may be taken. I could have said that there are two ways to skin a rabbit, but that would have been inappropriate. We could adopt the restrictive method contained in the Bill, which might cause definitional problems over fur, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire has pointed out. Or we could adopt a schedule of the species that the hon. Member for Garston wishes banned. We could also build in some provision allowing the Minister to change the schedule by regulation by adding species or taking them away.
I urge the latter route on the hon. Member for Garston. She will receive plaudits from her colleagues and others for banning the animals that she does not wish to be farmed for fur, but I am sure that if the Bill passes in its present form, we shall have to return to say, "Oops, sorry, we made a bit of a mistake on fur and we caught rabbits or other species that have been determined by Europe to have fur." We may all think that those species have wool, but if the European Union decides that they are furry, that is that.
I have been a MAFF Minister, and I have argued similar points before over such things as milk, ice cream and cheese, and over whether carrots are fruit or vegetables. The Minister may say that we all know what sheep are, but if Europe decides that something is covered in fur, we could have a problem. The schedule provides an easy escape route for the Minister, and that is the sensible approach.

Mr. Forth: It is desperately disappointing that the Minister is not going to enlighten us further. I am tempted to divide the House to find out whether it is convinced of the arguments that my hon. Friends and I have made.

Mr. Morley: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention wandered earlier, but I contributed to the debate by saying that because of the anomalies in the schedule—there is an argument for having such a schedule, but there will always be anomalies and the drafting of the Bill deals with the problem satisfactorily—it would cause more problems, even given the opportunities to amend the legislation at a later date, than the Bill as it stands. The Bill is better drafted now than it would be with the amendment.

Mr. Forth: In a spirit of good will and co-operation, I accept that significant contribution as the Minister's considered response to the debate. So that we can make progress—we have already done so today and we will make further progress in a moment—I will not divide the House on the amendment. I am not convinced by what has been said and my right hon. and hon. Friends are obviously not convinced either. We have found a serious flaw in the Bill even at this late stage in our deliberations. However, to allow us to press on, on this occasion I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

EFFECT OF FORFEITURE ORDERS

Mr. Forth: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 2, line 20, at end insert
'(c) in Northern Ireland, to the Crown Court'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 37, in clause 5, page 3, line 42, at end insert
'(c) in the case of businesses or parts of businesses carried on solely or primarily in Northern Ireland, the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland.'.
No. 38, in clause 6, page 4, line 6, at end insert—
'(d) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State'.
No. 35, in clause 7, page 4, line 13, leave out subsection (5).

Mr. Forth: This amendment concerns another matter that was raised in Committee, but has not been dealt with properly. There was a rather cursory debate on the matter, although I believe—and my right hon. and hon. Friends agree-that it raises some important and fundamental issues.
I can think of few subjects of more fundamental importance than the relationship between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That matter arises because of the provisions in the Bill. In Committee, there was some discussion on the relationships that exist between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, their different political dispensations, the different stages of development of the political institutions in those parts of the United Kingdom and the fact that fur farming is no longer conducted in Scotland—I do not think that it has ever been conducted in Northern Ireland, a point which at this stage is of only glancing relevance. It was almost suggested that that was partly the reason for not including Northern Ireland, which may or may not be so.
Surely two more important points are at issue. One is a political point, and I make no excuse for saying so. At this time more than any other, one cannot lightly exclude Northern Ireland from the provisions of a Bill without thinking through carefully what might be read into the exclusion and what the implications might be. That consideration stands on its own, but a subset of it would rightly be the extent to which one judges that Northern Ireland along with Scotland and Wales should be dealing with these matters in their very different ways.
The irony is that the promoter of the Bill seems to have shied away from ensuring a uniformity of approach even in a matter that is so important to her. I cannot believe that anyone who feels as strongly as I know the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) feels about this matter would be prepared to allow it to be devolved. If that happened, it would be subject to the variations of politics in the different parts of the United Kingdom and different provisions might apply.

Mr. Maclean: Is there not a greater inconsistency in the Bill in that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) extends the measure to Scotland, which has its own Parliament and will be able to take action on it, but not to Northern Ireland, where no proper Government or Parliament is as yet in place, and possibly may never be, given the present circumstances?

Mr. Forth: As ever, my right hon. Friend has read my mind. I was about to come to that consideration, but first I wanted to clear my mind on whether the issues raised by the Bill were sufficiently important to justify a United Kingdom approach being imposed from the House of Commons and the Lords in Westminster, or whether with our new, modern joined-up politics these days, or whatever one likes to call them, they should be left to the discretion of the voters and institutions that are being set up in their very different ways in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Bill does neither. We are falling between all those stools—I am sorry, I should say "among" and attempt to be grammatically accurate. There is a large unanswered question about exactly what the relationship is between the matters raised in the Bill and the United Kingdom and about how we want to progress them. I would have been prepared to accept, as a matter of consistency, either that the whole United Kingdom would be covered by this Westminster legislation or that the matter should properly be dealt with by the exciting, new, modern political institutions that we are setting up in the different parts of the kingdom. The Bill does neither the one nor the other.

Mr. Morley: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. When the Bill was drafted, we thought that,


because we had set up the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assemblies, it would be better to consult them as a general principle on such changes. Fur farms exist in England, and it was possible that a fur farm could have moved to Scotland; it is more difficult to move to Northern Ireland. The Scottish Office agreed that, to stop such moves, it would be better to have this as a Great Britain measure. Although there are no fur farms in Northern Ireland, his logic follows. The Government do not object to the principle of the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) may have something to say about it.

Mr. Forth: That is encouraging. I shall take a nod and a wink from the Minister, sit down immediately and hear what the Bill's promoter has to say.

Maria Eagle: I endorse what the Minister said. I have had some assistance from his Department on the Bill's scope. One accepts such help from the Government even in pursuing a private Member's Bill. Their channels for finding out what other Ministries think are speedier than mine. When the Bill was drafted, there were no answers from Northern Ireland, but I understand that the Northern Ireland Office is content for it to be a UK rather than a GB Bill. If it proceeds, it would be possible so to amend it.

Mr. Maclean: I listened carefully to the hon. Lady. I am not surprised by the Northern Ireland Office, because it is usually two months behind the other territorial Departments in responding on such measures.
I was surprised by the Minister's response that, in discussion with the Scottish Office, the Government decided to make this a UK matter. If the matter were

urgent, I could have understood it. The Scottish Parliament comes into effect on 1 July. If it were an animal health measure or an emergency prohibition on paralytic shellfish poisoning, we would have to move quickly to cover the whole United Kingdom. However, the Bill comes into force on 1 January 2002, and an amendment proposes to put it back to 2003. In all conscience, I cannot accept the Minister's suggestion that he made it apply to Scotland because the Scottish Parliament will not have time to consider or implement it. This is only 1999. The Scottish Parliament could have considered it in July or any time thereafter and made its own legislation.
I do not want go down the Scottish route because the amendment applies to Northern Ireland. There is an inconsistency. The Minister is not applying a measure to Northern Ireland when it is possible to do so. It could be done by Order in Council. Northern Ireland does not have a properly working devolved Assembly with government powers, yet we are applying it to Scotland, which has just got devolution and whose Parliament is responsible for mega-issues. The Scottish Parliament will have power to deal with big things, but it is not trusted to deal with this matter.
It is extraordinary that the Bill's provisions apply to Scotland and Wales despite the pending devolution of power to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. However, the provisions do not apply to Northern Ireland. Of course, at present there are no fur farms in Northern Ireland. I think that the Minister said that it would be extremely difficult to set up a fur farm in Northern Ireland. [Interruption.] Hon. Members say "to transfer"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 21 May.

Orders of the Day — Remaining Private Members' Bills

POVERTY AND SOCIAL EXCLUSION (NATIONAL STRATEGY) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

CHEQUES (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [19 March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 23 July.

Orders of the Day — BIRTHS AND DEATHS REGISTRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 June.

Orders of the Day — MOTOR ACCIDENT INJURY COMPENSATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

Orders of the Day — STREETWORKS BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Not moved.

Orders of the Day — ENERGY CONSERVATION (HOUSING) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [30 April], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 11 June.

Orders of the Day — ENERGY EFFICIENCY BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [12 March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 11 June.

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL CASES REVIEW (INSANITY) BILL [LORDS]

Read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),

That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Pound.]

Question agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Third Reading deferred till Friday 23 July.

Orders of the Day — HEDGES (CONTROL) BILL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

Orders of the Day — AGE LIMITS ON HEALTH CARE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 May.

Orders of the Day — HEALTH CARE AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [23 April], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 21 May.

Orders of the Day — ACCESS TO ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 May.

Orders of the Day — PLANNING APPEALS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 May.

Orders of the Day — BUS FUEL DUTY (EXEMPTIONS) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [12 March], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate further adjourned till Friday 21 May.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC HOUSE NAMES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 May.

Orders of the Day — EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (GIBRALTAR) BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 21 May.

Orders of the Day — SELECT COMMITTEES (QUORUM)

Motion made,
That, for the remainder of the present Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) shall have effect subject to the following modification in line 48, at the end to add—
'(4A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'.—[Mr.Hill.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. David Maclean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One is grateful for the presence throughout those proceedings of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. For his benefit, and in case he is tempted to say that only Conservatives objected, may it be noted that Labour Front Benchers also objected to Bills today?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Orders of the Day — Beta Interferon

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]

Mr. John Bercow: I am moved to raise the issue of the funding of beta interferon for the treatment of multiple sclerosis by the sad plight of two brave young constituents of mine, Miss Caroline Cripps and Mr. Marc Smith. However, it is only right to say at the outset that there is widespread interest on both sides of the House and outside the House in the subject of beta interferon for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. As the Minister is well aware, that interest is reflected in the 114 written representations that his Department has received from Members of Parliament, patients groups and the public since 1 January 1999; the nine oral questions on the subject since June 1998; the Adjournment debate on a closely related subject introduced by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 15 February this year; the 32 written questions on the subject since 1 May 1997; and, last but not least, early-day motion 47, which has attracted 145 signatures, including my own.
In preparing for today's debate, I have spoken to several people who have a direct interest in the subject. I have of course spoken to Caroline Cripps and Marc Smith, but I have also had contact with Dr. Dennis Briley, consultant neurologist at Stoke Mandeville hospital; Dr. Chris Fursdon Davis, consultant neurologist at the Radcliffe Infirmary; Mrs. Jackie Haynes, the chief executive of Buckinghamshire health authority; and Katherine Mercer, the government and industry affairs manager of Schering Health Care plc, which is one of the three manufacturers of beta interferon in this country and the only one thus far to have received a licence for that version of the product that treats people, not with the relapsing-remitting form of the disease, but with the secondary progressive form. Last but not least, I have spoken to and benefited from the briefing of Dr. Matthew Sowemimo, the policy officer of the Multiple Sclerosis Society.
Caroline Cripps is 28 years old; she lives in Westcott, a village in my constituency, and is by training a senior hair stylist at Diamonds in Aylesbury. I am sorry to say that, in June 1997, she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. She suffers from the relapsing-remitting form and, shortly after diagnosis, she was obliged to give up her work, although she has subsequently taken a computer training course and would be qualified and equipped to return to work, if her condition were to improve. After three relapses, she applied through her consultant neurologist Dr. Dennis Briley for funding of beta interferon to treat her condition. That request, made in June 1998, was rejected by Buckinghamshire health authority.
Caroline Cripps has to live with the misery and turmoil of that rejection. She has to live with the physical symptoms of multiple sclerosis, with which the House will be familiar—symptoms that are many, varied, unpredictable and the source of continuing fear and anxiety. She has to live with the social consequences of her condition and the denial of the most effective currently available treatment for it: the loss of independence, the deprivation of unemployment, the


problem of transportation from one part of the country to another and the unenviable challenge of access to and movement within buildings.
Marc Smith is 32 years old and works for Reynard Motorsport as an assembly technician. He was diagnosed as having multiple sclerosis in 1996, although he had in fact been suffering from the disease since 1991. After suffering three relapses, he, too, applied through his consultant neurologist for funding for beta interferon. Like Caroline Cripps, he was also rejected by Buckinghamshire health authority. That leads me to ask: what evidence is available on the effectiveness of beta interferon as a treatment?
We know that there have been four independent and separate clinical trials of the effectiveness of the drug. The results of those trials have shown that beta interferon can reduce the frequency and severity of relapses, increase the period of remission and slow down the progression of that chronic and debilitating neurological disease. What is more, that evidence has been accepted by the Government—as I hope the Minister will acknowledge. The Department of Health acknowledged that beta interferon could be an effective treatment and issued guidance to health authorities in November 1995 encouraging the prescription of it when consultant neurologists believe that it is clinically appropriate.
Yet how have those at the grassroots responded to that national guidance? Their response has been depressing. For at least two years, Buckinghamshire health authority wholly ignored the national guidance. After much pressure, it now funds only three patients for treatment with beta interferon, even though—and this emphasises the significance of the denial of funding—experts believe that between 20 and 40 people in the county of Buckinghamshire alone could benefit from treatment with it in the short term and that potentially up to half of the relevant client group, some 200 people, could benefit in the long term.
Earlier this year, the priorities forum established by Buckinghamshire health authority recommended against the provision and funding of beta interferon. That caused a furore. There was outrage. I believe that that furore and that outrage were justified, and I was part of it along with several of my right hon. and hon. Friends. On 24 March, Buckinghamshire health authority held a meeting and changed its position. It acknowledged the outcry and strength of feeling and the specialists' belief that the health authority was wrong. It said that it would provide some funding, although it added the caveat—which is enormously distressing to the sufferers and their loved ones, and arguably highly insulting—that it was "not a high priority" and that only "limited funding" of the drug treatment should be identified.
I regret to inform the Minister that, 51 days later, we still do not know how much money the authority will make available, how many people will be treated or by what means those who are to benefit will be identified. This is a serious state of affairs, but it is not peculiar to the county of Buckinghamshire. The problem is widespread—as the Minister, to his credit, has regularly acknowledged. There is a patchwork of provision the length and breadth of the United Kingdom and great disparities between what particular areas and health authorities might provide. That is a serious problem.
The Association of Quality in Healthcare has said that few authorities seem to know how much money they are spending on beta interferon or who exactly should qualify for the treatment. We know that 16 per cent. of authorities treat fewer than six patients with beta interferon. We know that only 1.5 to 2 per cent. of multiple sclerosis sufferers in the United Kingdom are treated with beta interferon and that that level compares unfavourably with other countries. In other western industrialised nations, the percentages of sufferers who benefit from the treatment range from 8 to 25 per cent.—the figure is slightly higher in north America than in western Europe, but the rate on the continent is still much better than in this country.
I draw attention to a point that arose during Health questions last week. The Minister of State will recall that, on 4 May, he said that the patchwork of provision and gross disparities in what was available were, as often as not, attributable to differences of opinion among consultant neurologists about whether it was appropriate to prescribe the drug. I counsel the hon. Gentleman against over-egging that pudding. I hope that he will not pray that in aid of his response. Above all, I hope that he will not use it as a cloak for a covert change of policy against the existing funding of beta interferon altogether. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why I say that.
I have no doubt whatever that the Minister was sincere and his motives were, as always, of the highest, but I believe that he was wrong for two reasons. First, all 18 consultant neurologists in the south-west of England were convinced of the clinical appropriateness of prescribing beta interferon and yet it was continually denied patients in that area for a long period. In other words, even where there was unanimity among consultants, the drug was not provided, so the argument that its lack of provision is due to a difference of opinion is not valid.
Secondly, even where there are differences of opinion—as there are about many medical matters that are not subject to certain correctness and exactitude—surely it does not follow that because some consultant neurologists do not believe that the drug is appropriate for their patients and do not therefore want to prescribe it, it should be denied to patients whose consultants have judged that it is appropriate and should be provided. My challenge is that the drug should ordinarily be prescribed if it is judged to be clinically appropriate.
I have a series of specific challenges to the Minister, to which I should very much appreciate his response. First, I hope that he will put on the record today that it would be wholly unacceptable for any health authority to use the interim period between now and the issue of updated guidance by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence as an excuse to stop or restrict its current funding of beta interferon. That would be cynical; it would be wrong; it would be resented, and I hope that the Minister will declare it thus.
Secondly, I seek the Minister's reassurance that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will be genuinely independent of the Department of Health and able to make its own clinical judgments. The hon. Gentleman will know that on 11 May, a mere three days ago, in Standing Committee A, which is considering the Health Bill, he was pressed on those important matters, first, by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), at column 505 of Hansard; then by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield
(Mr. Fabricant), at columns 506 and 512, and finally by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the shadow Secretary of State for Health, at column 513.
I hope that the Minister, who is a very agreeable fellow, will not take offence if I say that his answers to their challenges did not inspire me with confidence. He wobbled; he sat on the fence; he was non-committal; he committed the abiding politicians' sin of failing to answer a simple question. 1 hope today that he will make it clear that NICE will be independent of the Department of Health.
Thirdly, I hope that the Minister will tell me that NICE guidance will be mandatory and enforceable; otherwise it will be useless. The problem until now is that guidance has not been mandatory, and therefore it has not been capable of being readily enforced. Authorities have cocked a snook and said, "Well, we don't have to implement the guidance, so we won't." Will the Minister invoke the powers of the National Health Service Act 1977 to force recalcitrant authorities to come into line, and not welsh on their obligations but honour their responsibilities to the patients who look to them for assistance?
Fourthly, I am concerned about the appraisal committees that are to be established. It appears, from the consultation document, that only three specialist doctors will sit on each of those committees, but health economists, local commissioners and academics will also sit on them. Many hon. Members believe that the process of making a clinical judgment about what should be provided should be driven by a majority of people who are concerned not with the theory or financing of health care but with the professional responsibility of day-to-day delivery of health care to those who depend on it. Will such people be in the majority?
Fifthly, should the appraisal committee be anonymous to protect its integrity, as Ministers suggested in the consultation document? No, it should not be anonymous. These people will be highly qualified. They will have important responsibilities. Their decisions will greatly impact upon the health and life chances of thousands, tens of thousands or perhaps hundreds of thousands of people suffering from a variety of conditions. It is crucial that they should be identified to the public.
Sixthly, the economic appraisal should not just be about prescribing costs; it should take account of the costs of home care, of domestic adaptation, of social security costs, of forgone tax revenues. I hope that, as "The Pharmacoeconomics Journal" has requested, the Minister will make clear his commitment on this.
Seventhly, he should not strengthen the criteria on the targeting of the drug, either. There is already targeting. There are already criteria that must be satisfied. There are already limits beyond which people will not get the drug. I hope that he will not use that as an excuse to back down on existing commitments.
Eighthly, the Minister has raised the issue of specialist nursing provision, which of course is an important part of a package of care. Yet although there are great merits in specialist nursing care, there is no evidence that it can reduce the progression of the disease. There is evidence

that beta interferon can reduce the progression of the disease. That is why it should be in pole position in this debate.
Finally, the Government have floated the possibility that there could be a significant management challenge in a change of policy resulting in a significant funding of a new drug. I acknowledge that it is a challenge. It is a problem and it is not to be sniffed at in any way, but it must not be an obstacle to doing what is right by the people who look to us for assistance.
I have spoken today with conviction and with passion—and without apology for that conviction or that passion—on behalf of my constituents, but also on behalf of a great many other people throughout the country in other constituencies, who look to the Government for help. I look forward with eager anticipation to what the Minister of State says in reply.

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on securing the debate, and thank him for the way in which he has presented the case—not just the way in which he spoke about his constituents, but the way in which he addressed the issues, which was mercifully free of some of the more rhetorical elements of the debate that sometimes surround this important issue.
With regard to the hon. Gentleman's constituents, Caroline Cripps and Marc Smith, whom he obviously knows, I cannot comment on individual cases, but he spoke movingly of their position. Many of us know, from constituents or through people who are known personally to us, of the enormous impact that multiple sclerosis can have.
As the hon. Gentleman said, multiple sclerosis—one of the commonest diseases of the central nervous system—is an issue of great importance to the Department of Health, to health professionals, to sufferers and to their families and friends. That is reflected in the constant concern that is shown in the House about the matter.
I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman's specific questions in the time available. He knows what Adjournment debates are like. I assure him that, should I fail to do so, I shall write in follow-up. I hope that I can touch on some of the key points that he raised.
Multiple sclerosis can be very difficult to diagnose and treat. There is no conclusive diagnostic test. The symptoms that patients experience could be symptomatic of many other conditions. A complete clinical examination is key to the diagnosis.
Four categories of multiple sclerosis are recognised by experts: benign, primary progressive, relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive MS. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, until earlier this year, the immunomodulating drug beta interferon was licensed only for the treatment of the relapsing-remitting form of the disease.
Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis is characterised by periodic attacks of the symptoms characteristic of multiple sclerosis, such as fatigue, disturbed vision, difficulties in eating and drinking, and the inability to walk. Those attacks are followed by full or partial recovery.
Following guidance issued in 1995, health authorities now have procedures by which suitable patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis can receive treatment with beta interferon. The guidance recommends that prescribing should be initiated by hospital neurologists, where clinically appropriate, and asks health authorities to develop local arrangements with hospitals for purchasing and prescribing the treatment.
Not all patients with the relapsing-remitting form of multiple sclerosis will be suitable for treatment with beta interferon. The licensed indications for those drugs specify certain criteria for treatment, relating, for example, to the frequency of relapse and degree of disability, and—as with all licensed drugs—there are various contra— indications, including pregnancy and severe depression. There will, of course, be some patients who may otherwise be suitable but who are unable or unwilling to tolerate regular injections, or the side effects that may be associated with taking beta interferon, including inflammation at the site where the drug is injected, flu-like symptoms and mood changes.
Earlier this year, Schering's beta interferon product with the brand name Betaferon was licensed for treating the secondary progressive form of multiple sclerosis, which is characterised by deterioration without periods of relief, and more severe disablement. Again, only certain patients will be suitable for, or will want, beta interferon treatment. I understand that Schering is undertaking further research, which may identify further subgroups of patients with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis who may benefit.
I know that the hon. Gent did not do this, but it is terribly important that no one raises false expectations about the ability of beta interferon or any other drug to combat an extremely debilitating and distressing condition. Beta interferon is not a cure for multiple sclerosis; there is no cure for it. The evidence seems to suggest that some patients with a particular form of the disease can benefit, perhaps briefly, from the use of beta interferon. Sadly, the evidence also suggests that those short-term improvements are not always sustained.
I understand that current evidence suggests that beta interferon drugs reduce the rate of relapses in relapsing-remitting MS by some 30 per cent. on average, in a range from 14 to 44 per cent. Betaferon was licensed for treating secondary progressive MS on the basis of evidence suggesting that, if used for three years, it delays disease progression by up to one year.
In dealing with beta interferon, clinicians treating individual patients and those advising health authorities on their overall policy need to take account of both the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this drug. As I said, the evidence appears to suggest that some patients with the relapsing-remitting and secondary progressive forms of multiple sclerosis can benefit from the use of beta interferon, but that, sadly, those short-term improvements are temporary. The cost of beta interferon treatment is some £10,000 a year per patient.
However, it is entirely right that existing treatments for that debilitating disease should be evaluated constantly. We should also support research into new and better treatments. Indeed, the Government are directing funding into research in that area. The Medical Research Council spent approximately £640,000 specifically on MS research during 1997–98, and we have awarded the

Multiple Sclerosis Society £15,000 a year from 1997–98 until 1999–2000 for its emergent therapies project. In addition, two pieces of work have been funded through the Department of Health's health technology assessment programme, and we have actively supported the Royal Pharmaceutical Society in developing the protocol for a trial of cannabinoids in multiple sclerosis.

Mr. Bercow: Can the Minister confirm that, in appraising the cost of beta interferon treatment, the social costs to which I referred will be considered as part of the equation?

Mr. Denham: The hon. Gentleman anticipates one of the points that I wanted to cover. The position is that we published a document earlier this year on the method of appraisal to be used by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. One part of that document looked at how the cost-effectiveness of various interventions might be measured against national health service costs, and invited comments on the circumstances in which wider costs might be taken into account. As with a number of the questions that the hon. Gentleman raised about NICE, which stem from the discussions about that document, we are, as I told the Standing Committee the other day, considering a wide range of responses, and we shall make our position clear in due course. The document certainly did not rule out the possibility of wider costs being taken into account, but we must consider very carefully whether, and the extent to which, that happens.
The Department is also in the process of commissioning systematic reviews of existing evidence across the range of specific service interventions and service delivery options, including beta interferon, for people with multiple sclerosis. Those will help identify further research questions, and will provide technical evidence to enable a rigorous appraisal to be completed as rapidly as possible.
The Government are committed to improving standards of health care and to ensuring that newer treatments, including new medicines, are introduced into the national health service as fast as possible where they represent a genuine therapeutic advance and are cost-effective.
Unfortunately, there is at present no consistent view about whether that can be said about beta interferon, even among specialists. A wide spectrum of views is held by the 250 or so neurologists in the UK about beta interferon's place in treating multiple sclerosis. It is clear that some neurologists are keen to prescribe beta interferon, although even they acknowledge that it is no wonder drug, but others think that other health care options represent a more responsible use of resources. Those differing opinions can occur within a single health authority.
At Question Time recently, I drew attention to the fact that those differing views are one reason why there are differences in practice. I understand that the four neurologists working in Buckinghamshire hold differing views—two generally choose to prescribe beta interferon according to defined clinical guidance; the others, given the resources available, prefer to provide MS nurse specialist support.
It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that discussions in Buckinghamshire on a wider level—within the health authority's priorities forum, in the health
authority itself and in public life—reflect the differing priorities that different people might put on the approaches to handling this condition.
I understand that, since the board meeting in March, the health authority has met local neurologists within the county to agree a protocol for identifying which patients are eligible for treatment. That process has yet to be finalised, but Buckinghamshire health authority will of course review the situation as new evidence or guidelines become available. Without authoritative national guidance, the current uncertainty is bound to lead to variations from one part of the country to another when 100 health authorities and their neurologists are taking such complex decisions.
We have set up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to help to ensure that patients can have access to consistent, high-quality NHS services. I have made it clear previously that we are likely to ask NICE to prepare guidance on the place of beta interferon among the range of interventions and services available to MS patients.
Under the appraisal system, companies will be free to submit any relevant data, with the core of NICE's appraisal focusing on the health benefits achievable from NHS budgets—including hospital beds and staff, not only the cost of drugs.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the current position, ahead of any referral to NICE. My officials will shortly be consulting with the Multiple Sclerosis Society, the medical profession, health authorities and the pharmaceutical industry on a draft health service circular relating to the treatment of the secondary progressive form of multiple sclerosis. For the avoidance of doubt, that circular will make it clear that existing guidance on the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis continues to apply until further guidance is available.
It is important that we do not lose sight of the other treatments and services available to MS patients and new health care options that may be on the horizon, such as MS nurses, physiotherapy, treatments for fatigue and for pain and immunomodulating therapies, including beta interferons, copolymer 1, azathioprine, and others. It is likely that we will want NICE to examine all the elements that make up the complete management of MS.
In respect of the independence of NICE, which is a special health authority, I made it clear in Committee this week that NICE will operate within a framework agreement set with the Secretary of State. As I have said, the consultation on the appraisal approach has produced a wide range of views about the form that that guidance should take, which we are currently considering. I made the promise that the process would be open and transparent, which is important.
The hon. Gentleman asked for NICE guidance to be mandatory and enforceable, but I ask him to consider the fact that clinicians have to take judgments with their patients in the consulting room. However, we will of course be reviewing the way in which NICE guidance in general is applied in the health service through the Commission for Health Improvement. That will be one of its important roles.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues, but I fear that the clock will beat me. He referred to NHS resources, and he would expect me to draw attention to the £21 million of extra investment in the NHS that the Government are making over the next three years. I thank him for the way in which he has approached the debate; the House will return to this matter, which is of great interest to all our constituents, on many occasions.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Three o 'clock.